Tokina, Tamron or Nikon

M

Marcos James

I've Got Orsum Mates..
Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,279
Name
Marcos James
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm in need of a new lens up to about 70mm.

So 3 options (replacing a Sigma lens)

Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED - £989.99

Tokina 24 or 28 - 70mm - someone I know has one but not sure on size as I can't find one anywhere and he says he paid about £200 but now lives in Germany so no good suggesting I borrow it.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di Macro IF - £289

So going on price the Nikon is obviously the best of the 3. Don't think I can currently justify the price so out of the other 2 has anybody got experience of them, good and bad points before I spend any money.
 
The Tokina's are pretty bad, unless you can find an old f/2.6 - f/2.8 - that should be good.

The Nikkor is the best, but the Tamron is very very close.

I had both, I decided to keep the Tamron and sell the Nikon - while the Nikon edges it optically (but you need to pixel peep at 100% and even then its close).

Can't go wrong with either the Nikkor or Tamron though.

Also consider the forthcoming Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 HSM - its supposed to be better optically than the current one.
 
Definitely not a waste of money, its excellent. Rarely a bad word about it, I've heard a few people say it focuses slow, but it doesn't (must be a Canon thing as the Nikon fit is super quick)

Apparently the Sony fit version holds up VERY well on the 24 megapixel A900, so it must be a good lens if it works at 24mm on FF.
 
I'm guessing you do a lot of motorsport, in which case, get the Nikkor!
 
apologies for the thread hijack, but how can a £300 Tamron come close to matching a £1000 Nikon?

and what is it that makes one so much more expensive than the other?
 
GoLotus said:
...


and what is it that makes one so much more expensive than the other?
Click to expand...


Actually, branding is a huge part of the cost ... though in all fairness, in the photography industry this isn't as bad as some other industries (take perfumes, cosmetics, brand labels like LV etc.), but still branding has a huge price tag.

That said, the price of the Nikon are held well in 2nd-hand market, that seem to justify their initial high outlay.



That aside, and back to OT, the Nikon 24-70 AF-S is a fantastic lens, though pricy; a good lens to consider may be the Tamron 17-50 f2.8; that's another great lens and a fraction the price of the Nikon .. though not exactly the focal range the OP is looking for!
 
I had the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, and I couldn't fault it. My old man has the Nikkor AF-S 24-75mm f/2.8, and I really wonder why it's 3 times the price... It's certainly not 3 times as good:) Saying that, I use a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 myself now, and am just as happy with it as I was with the Tamron!
 
I have the Tamron 28-75 f2.8, lovely and sharp at all ranges, and gets great reviews. Not so sharp wide open though but by F5.6 and above its really nice. I have no experience of the Nikkor, but for less than £300 for that range, you cant go wrong with the Tamron.
Allan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top