Nikon-fit 24-70's?

Phil1974

Phil1974

Suspended / Banned
Messages
868
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,
I would love to get a Nikon 24-70 but they are enormously expensive brand new. What is the real world difference in performance between the Nikon model and a Tamron or Sigma version? Is the price tag really justified?
 
Good question, I'm in the same boat. Trying to decide between the 24-70 sigma or the tamron 28-75. I will follow this thread with interest!
 
Tried all three - surprisingly the Sigma was really awful - maybe I tried a duff copy, but it was new? The reviews also don't rate it against either the Nikon or Tamron, and if you're looking for new, the Tamron is much less expensive and has had excellent reviews.
I ended up with a Nikon (2nd hand) and I'm delighted with it :)
 
In the end I bit the bullet and chose a Nikon for myself. I'm sure the Tamron is a lovely lens, my old 17-50 was but I had been let down by build quality from Tamron in the past and didn't want to end up in a similar position. Second hand Nikon versus new Tamron isn't a massive gap, and that's what sealed it for me, bought from a reputable dealer with warranty and probably would again. MPB are selling Nikons at £819 in excellent condition this weekend, £849 as new condition!
 
Last edited:
I had a Sigma 24-70 a few years back and it was somewhat average. I replaced it with the Nikon 28-70 F2.8 which was a stellar lens and much better than the Sigma, but wouldn't work on the D810 I bought recently. I traded it in for a used Nikon 24-70 which is even better!

If you can afford a little bit more for a good used Nikon 24-70, then I'd definitely recommend it!
 
Thanks guys. I have left the iPad open displaying the MPB page for a couple of days where the Mrs can see it [emoji1]
 
Tamron 24-70mm is very good. If you get a good copy then sharpness is on par (sharper at some focal lengths, softer at others). The Nikon renders nicer imo, has nicer Bokeh and AF is much faster, but is it worth the extra????
 
Is there such a thing as a bad copy of the Nikon lens? I don't see the point in running the risk of getting a dodgy Tamron or Sigma but the phrase 'good/bad copy' is used a lot. How common is it to get a duff one?
 
Phil1974 said:
Is there such a thing as a bad copy of the Nikon lens? I don't see the point in running the risk of getting a dodgy Tamron or Sigma but the phrase 'good/bad copy' is used a lot. How common is it to get a duff one?
Click to expand...
I think sometimes it's a bit overexagerrated, but Tamron and Sigma both have had some QC issues. I've only bought one Tamron and been happy with that but I've had a few Sigmas with issues. Sigma do seem to be getting their act together though, especially with their art lenses.

You'd be unlucky to get a bad copy of a Nikon Pro lens.
 
Many reviews - e.g. Tony Northrup - say the Tamron is better if perhaps a smidge slower to focus and not quite so sturdily made. It works for me anyway and I use it a lot. I've got 3 Tamron lenses and have no QC issues with any of them.

However.. If you have some fast primes too then the 24-120 f4 might be more useful as a walkaround lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top