Which 24-70 for my D600....?

Andrew_S

Andrew_S

Suspended / Banned
Messages
94
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

I'm looking to buy a 24-70mm 2.8 lens for my D600, which will hopefully complete my lens line up for the near future. Unless I win the lottery and can buy a 400mm 2.8. :lol: :lol:

Now I'd love to straight away get the Nikon version, but what are the Tamron and Sigma versions like in comparison? Ideally I'd like to save money, as we all would, but I want to know if it's worth going the extra yard. I've read lots of things, but I'm still undecided as to what to do. I've seen lots regarding the Sigma that it's pretty soft at 2.8? The Tamron appears to get fairly good reviews for most things? Where as the Nikon is loved anywhere and everywhere. I'd be using it as my main carry round lens when I'm not using my 200/300/400 and for some indoor stuff that would require the use of the f2.8.

The cheapest new Nikon appears to be just over £1000 from Panamoz, whilst I'm yet to find a fairly good deal on a used version. Does anyone know what the Tamron tends to go for used?
 
Sigma.

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/474-sigma_ex_2470_28_hsm_fx?start=1

It's woeful wide open. I've used this lens, and was very disappointed in it wide open. It sharpens up some when stopped down but is just not in the same league as the Nikkor or the Tamron.

I've heard good things about the Tamron, but never used it. Lens tests would suggest it's equally as good as the Nikkor though... but the Nikkor is sharper at 70mm, and the Tamron sharper at 24mm. They tend to meet in the middle in terms of performance at 50mm. The Tamron is a superb lens though for the money.

With lens charts, the Tamron appears to take the lead with edge performance at wide apertures, but that's mainly due to the Nikkor's high CA. With real world subjects, the Nikkor is visibly sharper. This is why shots of lens charts are very misleading. Take a look at the review below. In lens chart tests, the Tamron seems equally as good as the Nikkor, and in some cases, superior... with real world subjects though, you'll notice the Nikkor is visibly sharper. As you won't be shooting lens charts, I'll let you decide.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_vs_Tamron_24-70mm_comparison/

You can only take the lens chart vs. real world scenario so far though, and the Sigma is just pants in comparison to these two.

The Nikkor 24-70 2.8 suffers quite badly from chromatic aberration wide open, but this can be corrected in Lightroom.

Personally, with a hi-res full frame camera, I just don't see the point in making compromises in lens quality, so I'd go with the Nikkor or the Tamron. The Sigma is just too crap compared to the other two.
 
S/H Nikon 28-70 AF-S f2.8 might be an alternative at around £600+
 
You'll be hard pushed to get one for that even used if Ebay is anything to go by.
 
Pookeyhead said:
You'll be hard pushed to get one for that even used if Ebay is anything to go by.
Click to expand...

£600+ is very obtainable, there have been a number from £600 - £695 and one very reputable dealer has one at £690.
 
Looks like that is the answer then.
 
The new tamron is meant to be comparable to the nikon according to AP mag test and under £700 if you pay transfer at panamoz. You also have the advantage of stabilization.
 
Meant to be? Well....

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_vs_Tamron_24-70mm_comparison/

Scroll down to the real world test images, not the lens chart images... noticeably softer at the edge on a FX camera.


PeLam.jpg


Similar story at the other focal lengths too with the exception of 70mm where the Nikon seems slightly softer at f8... other than that, the Nikkor seems to be the better all round lens. Hardly surprising really considering the cost!

Looks like a great lens, but with a 24mp FF camera I'd want the best lens possible, otherwise what's the point?
 
Last edited:
I use a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 with my D600 and it is not soft at f/2.8.. the colour is a little washy in some light situations wide open..
I bought mine on ebay 3 yrs ago for £350 and have used it with D90 / D300 / D7000 & D600

Great value for money !!
 
Last edited:
Well.. i took mine back and got a refund within 24 hours. It was crap. I was waiting for the Sigma users to arrive and tell everyone how great they are :)
 
After everything i said above i would probably still buy a used Nikon than a new tamron.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Get a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 and save a shed load of cash
Click to expand...

It's the only viable alternative to the Nikkor if funds are tight, so yes.. agreed.
 
I'm a huge sigma fan and will defend them to hilt on many of thier lenses, but the 24-70 I had of theirs was mediocre at best.
Haven't used the tamron so can't comment, but I think the Nikon is worth every penny they charge.
 
I have zero brand loyalty. If Sigma make a lens that beats other brands, I will buy it. All my lenss are Nikkors not through snobbery, but because there's never been any real 3rd party competition when I've been purchasing.

I have had many 3rd party lenses though. That Tokina 24-70 gave the Nikkor a good run for it's money when I was replacing my tired old Nikkor 35-70 F2.8D. I also had, loved, and will probably get another Samyang 35mm 1.4.. that kicked the Nikkor 35mm 1.4 into the weeds... but I needed AF eventually and replaced it.

That Sigma 24-70 2.8 is a bag 'o ***** though.
 
I bought a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 a couple of years ago. I'd already used and loved their 10-20mm.

I used the 24-70 once. It went straight back.

Truly awful.
 
Cheers for all of your views, I'm really glad it's given me something to think about. I'll pass by on the Sigma I think and to be honest it was already down to the Tamron on Nikkor.

I'm assuming I'd be hard pushed to find a Nikon at £850ish used, so I imagine the saving to get a new Tamron from Panamoz is going to be £200+....

To be honest I hadn't looked at a Nikon 28-70, so I'll go and check them out now.
 
i got the slightly older nikon 35-70 2.8 and its a cracker. I dont miss the 11mm at the wide end at all and it only cost a few hundred quid at the time.
 
If you have the money for the Nikon then don't hesitate, you won't regret it for a second! However if you are on more of a budget then you can't go wrong with the Tamron 28-75, for the money it simply can't be beaten.

I've owned both, and although the Nikon is definitely better in all areas, whether it's £900 better is debatable. For me it was worth it, but it was still tough to give up my Tamron, and if I hadn't have had to sell it to recoup some of the cost of the 24-70, I would certainly have kept it.
 
Last edited:
I went with the Nikon for my D800. The new Tamron wasn't out at the time, otherwise I may have seriously considered it. But, do we really need VC 24-70? If money is not an issue, Nikon every time. It just feels so good in hand, really. Until you hold it, you can't relate. It's possibly the nicest lens I've owned to date, and I include the 70-200 VRII in that!
 
Last edited:
Andrew_S said:
Cheers for all of your views, I'm really glad it's given me something to think about. I'll pass by on the Sigma I think and to be honest it was already down to the Tamron on Nikkor.

I'm assuming I'd be hard pushed to find a Nikon at £850ish used, so I imagine the saving to get a new Tamron from Panamoz is going to be £200+....

To be honest I hadn't looked at a Nikon 28-70, so I'll go and check them out now.
Click to expand...

There is a nikon 24-70 in the classifieds on here for £875. £850 is an entirely reasonable budget for one if buying privately.

They're a superb lens but if I had the choice I'd probably buy a nikon 28-70 in preference. IQ is pretty much the same and the 4mm lost at the wide end is more than made up for by the sheer quality of the thing. A useful saving on cost too.
 
There's been too many times I bought cheap and bought twice or three times. I wished I just went straight for the Nikon 24-70 (and 70-200, and ...)
 
There's been too many times I bought cheap and bought twice or three times. I wished I just went straight for the Nikon 24-70 (and 70-200, and ...)
Click to expand...

Oh so true.
 
EspressoJunkie said:
I've owned both, and although the Nikon is definitely better in all areas, whether it's £900 better is debatable.
Click to expand...


Tamron £750 approx. Nikkor £1200 approx = £450 difference approx.

I see your point though. Is it worth the extra? Yes. Is it £450 better? No, but that's not the point.



If you can afford it, I'd still get the Nikkor. It's like Hi-Fi equipment: You reach a point of diminishing returns, but it's still better. With the D3X, D600 or D800 I'd still pay the extra. These camera's demand the best lenses if you want the best from the them. If you're Just going to put a poor quality lens like the Sigma 24-70 F2.8 on it, you've just wasted money on the camera in my opinion. You could have saved cash and bought a D700.
 
And then we haven't even starting to discuss the value they keep when you want to sell it ;)
 
gad-westy said:
There is a nikon 24-70 in the classifieds on here for £875. £850 is an entirely reasonable budget for one if buying privately.

They're a superb lens but if I had the choice I'd probably buy a nikon 28-70 in preference. IQ is pretty much the same and the 4mm lost at the wide end is more than made up for by the sheer quality of the thing. A useful saving on cost too.
Click to expand...

As above Nikon 28-70 is an awesome lens ....love mine,and personally haven't missed the extra 4 mm although wouldn't pass the chance of a 24-70 but it'd only be lens list buy 😏
 
Should read lens lust ... Damn predictive text :-(
 
Plus one for the tamron 28-75 f2.8. Not sure how it can be beaten at the price. Around 200 for a good used copy.

In an ideal world, yes the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 would be in my bag but can't fault the tamron at this price. Had a few test shots in people and portraits crit section and on my Flickr.

I suspect I may replace it with the nikkor when funds allow, but it's doing a pretty good job in the meantime!!

S
 
I've got both the Tamron and the Nikon. Must admit that whilst its good, I was expecting more from the Tamron following all the love on here. In the same setting ill use the Nikon any day. Super fast focus and basically just spot on all the time, to me the Tamron doesn't even come close which is understandable for the. I haven't gotten rid of my Tamron as funnily enough despite all the love it just wouldn't sell for £200. I've decided to keep it at the time as it has an aperture ring for my manual film cameras. But even then I just prefer getting out a prime or two. Doing it agin, I'd skip that route and keep the £200 in my pocket to add to the Nikon and wait a little longer.
 
dejongj said:
I've got both the Tamron and the Nikon. Must admit that whilst its good, I was expecting more from the Tamron following all the love on here. In the same setting ill use the Nikon any day. Super fast focus and basically just spot on all the time, to me the Tamron doesn't even come close which is understandable for the. I haven't gotten rid of my Tamron as funnily enough despite all the love it just wouldn't sell for £200. I've decided to keep it at the time as it has an aperture ring for my manual film cameras. But even then I just prefer getting out a prime or two. Doing it agin, I'd skip that route and keep the £200 in my pocket to add to the Nikon and wait a little longer.
Click to expand...

does your body have an inb uilt focus motor, if so does your tamron have the inbuilt focus motor, if so theres your problem, there are 2 different models, choose the wrong one and you have bought a dog
 
dejongj said:
I've decided to keep it at the time as it has an aperture ring for my manual film cameras.
Click to expand...


Then I suspect we are not talking about the same lens here.

We are discussing this... or I was at any rate.

CkTVQ.jpg


The Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD
 
Last edited:
dejongj said:
I've got both the Tamron and the Nikon. Must admit that whilst its good, I was expecting more from the Tamron following all the love on here. In the same setting ill use the Nikon any day. Super fast focus and basically just spot on all the time, to me the Tamron doesn't even come close which is understandable for the. I haven't gotten rid of my Tamron as funnily enough despite all the love it just wouldn't sell for £200. I've decided to keep it at the time as it has an aperture ring for my manual film cameras. But even then I just prefer getting out a prime or two. Doing it agin, I'd skip that route and keep the £200 in my pocket to add to the Nikon and wait a little longer.
Click to expand...

I went through 4 different Tamron 28-75s before I found one I was completely happy with.
 
A quick note RE: The Nikon 28-70mm AF-S F2.8

I had one of these on my D3 before both were nicked a few years back - GREAT lens and bought then for £450 use (as seen) from Ffordes. Cracked scale window and missing zoom rubber. Nikon replaced both for nowt at a roadshow.

When I subsequently got the Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 on a D700 the only difference I noticed was the new one was a bit bigger - IQ was the same as far as I could tell (I don't shoot test cards lol). So if you can get one - the older 28-70mm is a good buy!
 
Nikon 28-70. They go on eBay for about £600 sh. My friend got one and it's fantastic. Tack.
 
Gary Coyle said:
does your body have an inb uilt focus motor, if so does your tamron have the inbuilt focus motor, if so theres your problem, there are 2 different models, choose the wrong one and you have bought a dog
Click to expand...

No bim Tamron and my body has bim. I bought the right one.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Then I suspect we are not talking about the same lens here.

We are discussing this... or I was at any rate.

The Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD
Click to expand...

But that is not the £200 one ;) for that money I most definitely have the Nikon, even if the are even in the real world, the resale alone makes it worthwhile.
 
Last edited:
EspressoJunkie said:
I went through 4 different Tamron 28-75s before I found one I was completely happy with.
Click to expand...

I had that with the 17-50. And Los with sigma with the 70-200. Which makes buying privately secondhand a minefield.
 
I have the sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM. I bought it second hand for what seemed like a very decent price (around £300), but realised too late that it suffered from severe back-focussing issues which were beyond the correction of my D700. I sent it to Sigma for calibration (~£40, plus £10 insured postage); it came back better but still not great. I sent it back again with a strongly-worded letter and a request for them to refund me the second postage cost. They did, and the lens duly arrived back working perfectly; no front- or back-focus issues, and sharp at all apertures. So it ended up costing me £350, but I have a 24-70 2.8 lens which I've used professionally for the past two years and has never skipped a beat. It is contrasty, quick and accurate to focus, very usable wide open and tack sharp from f/4.

Sigma's quality control is dreadful, but if you get a dog they will sort it out for you. If you can afford the Nikon, get the Nikon. I've also had the Tamron 28-75 and Tokina 28-70 AT-X pro. Both are good fast zooms, but weren't wide enough for my needs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top