[Lindy]

Hello All
Been agonising over whether to take the plunge and buy this lens Tamron (Nikon AF) 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD. I have the Nikon d3100 and have only ever bought Nikon lenses. So I wondered if anyone has this lens and as a result would not recommend it. I like the fact it's F2.8 all the way as opposed to the Nikon which is only F2.8 at 24mm. I would like to use it for family portraits. Any advice much appreciated.
Thank you
Lindy

[MrB]

Hello Lindy, and welcome.

As you can see, I do not have a Nikon system, but just a few points to consider.

Are you thinking of changing to a full-frame body? The Tamron 24-70 is a good image quality lens, but it is for APS-C (DX) and full-frame (FX) so it is quite big and heavy and relatively costly - it might make your small and light D3100 feel a bit unbalanced, so try it on your camera before you buy.

Do you want it only for portraits, or also for general walk-about photography? If to include the latter, then the wider-angle and much cheaper Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 zoom for APS-C (DX) cameras might be more versatile and portable - e.g for landscapes and other photogenic features that you come across in your travels - being smaller and lighter to carry around, but also constant f/2.8 and good image quality.

If you are thinking about the out-of-focus backgrounds for portrait shots that the wider aperture will give, perhaps you should think about a Nikon (DX or FX) 50 or 85 prime lens - either will be much smaller, lighter and cheaper than the Tamron 24-70, and will open up to f/1.8 for short depth of field.

Cheers.
Philip

[Lindy]

Hello Lindy, and welcome.

As you can see, I do not have a Nikon system, but just a few points to consider.

Are you thinking of changing to a full-frame body? The Tamron 24-70 is a good image quality lens, but it is for APS-C (DX) and full-frame (FX) so it is quite big and heavy and relatively costly - it might make your small and light D3100 feel a bit unbalanced, so try it on your camera before you buy.

Do you want it only for portraits, or also for general walk-about photography? If to include the latter, then the wider-angle and much cheaper Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 zoom for APS-C (DX) cameras might be more versatile and portable - e.g for landscapes and other photogenic features that you come across in your travels - being smaller and lighter to carry around, but also constant f/2.8 and good image quality.

If you are thinking about the out-of-focus backgrounds for portrait shots that the wider aperture will give, perhaps you should think about a Nikon (DX or FX) 50 or 85 prime lens - either will be much smaller, lighter and cheaper than the Tamron 24-70, and will open up to f/1.8 for short depth of field.

Cheers.
Philip

So helpful Philip, thank you.
Not planning on changing to a full frame body at present but maybe in the future.

It would mostly be for family portraits of four or more, framing them with their surroundings. I currently use my Nikon 50mm prime lens which I love, but sometimes I'm in a situation where I need to go quite far back and don't always have the room!
I would also like to use it for parties and that's where the weight concerns me, having to hold it for long periods of time.
I didn't know about the Tamron 17-50 so will have a look now.

Thanks again
Kelly

[MrB]

So helpful Philip, thank you.
Not planning on changing to a full frame body at present but maybe in the future.

It would mostly be for family portraits of four or more, framing them with their surroundings. I currently use my Nikon 50mm prime lens which I love, but sometimes I'm in a situation where I need to go quite far back and don't always have the room!
I would also like to use it for parties and that's where the weight concerns me, having to hold it for long periods of time.
I didn't know about the Tamron 17-50 so will have a look now.

Thanks again
Kelly

Hello again, Lindy? or Kelly?!

From the situations you have described above, it would seem that you do not really need the 85mm of the bigger Tamron. In fact, if you already have one or two smaller aperture zooms to cover a good range of focal lengths (e.g. an 18-55 kit lens), you might get your desired bigger aperture shots (and save a lot of size, weight and money) by using this prime lens:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKO...nikon+35mm

Apologies if you are not in the UK, but then you will be able to find it in your own country.

Cheers.
Philip

[Lindy]

So helpful Philip, thank you.
Not planning on changing to a full frame body at present but maybe in the future.

It would mostly be for family portraits of four or more, framing them with their surroundings. I currently use my Nikon 50mm prime lens which I love, but sometimes I'm in a situation where I need to go quite far back and don't always have the room!
I would also like to use it for parties and that's where the weight concerns me, having to hold it for long periods of time.
I didn't know about the Tamron 17-50 so will have a look now.

Thanks again
Kelly

Hello again, Lindy? or Kelly?!

From the situations you have described above, it would seem that you do not really need the 85mm of the bigger Tamron. In fact, if you already have one or two smaller aperture zooms to cover a good range of focal lengths (e.g. an 18-55 kit lens), you might get your desired bigger aperture shots (and save a lot of size, weight and money) by using this prime lens:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKO...nikon+35mm

Apologies if you are not in the UK, but then you will be able to find it in your own country.

Cheers.
Philip

Hi Philip

Let's stick with Kelly, it's complicated, I blame my parents!

I have that Nikon prime lens already ! I don't know what it is about it but they never seem as sharp as the 50mm. Perhaps I should give it another chance.
Same with the kit lens, can't remember the last time I used that.

Thank you for your advice, maybe the answer is right under my nose!
I shall be experimenting today.

Thanks
Kelly

[EdMak]

Tamron are excellent lenses, to me. I only use an 18-200mm, for everything. Ed.

[Lindy]

Tamron are excellent lenses, to me. I only use an 18-200mm, for everything. Ed.

Thanks Ed

Yes only seem to hear good things about Tamron. Will own one at some point.

Kelly

[Phil J]

Hi Kelly,

I'd say 'go for it'. I have the Tamron SP 70 - 300 Di VC F/4-5.6 and it's a blisteringly sharp lens, which is also 'full frame', I use it on my Nikon D300. Tamron have improved their quality in leaps and bounds in recent years and their lenses now rival the best of the big name camera manufacturers. Take a look at some of EdMac's pictures to get first hand testimony of this!!

Best regards.

Phil.

[MrB]

Phil, I agree with you about the quality of Tamron lenses - I have the 17-50 which is superb.

However, when compared with your 70-300, the 24-70 is more than two and a half times the cost, and a broader and heavier lens. Kelly's camera is smaller and almost half the weight of the D300, so will not be as well-balanced and easy to hold if fitted with a big heavy lens. And particularly a lens that could be regarded as a standard range zoom for continuous every day use, rather than a long-range telephoto zoom for a more specialised type of shot.

I think Kelly needs to think very carefully, and preferably to try the lens on the camera, before making the purchase, rather than to just "go for it".

Cheers.
Philip

[Phil J]

Phil, I agree with you about the quality of Tamron lenses - I have the 17-50 which is superb.

However, when compared with your 70-300, the 24-70 is more than two and a half times the cost, and a broader and heavier lens. Kelly's camera is smaller and almost half the weight of the D300, so will not be as well-balanced and easy to hold if fitted with a big heavy lens. And particularly a lens that could be regarded as a standard range zoom for continuous every day use, rather than a long-range telephoto zoom for a more specialised type of shot.

I think Kelly needs to think very carefully, and preferably to try the lens on the camera, before making the purchase, rather than to just "go for it".

Cheers.
Philip

Hi Philip,

Having looked through various reviews and tests of this range of lens, DP review came up with this comparison list.


Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG HSM

Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM

Approx price* Tamron • $1300 • £810 Canon • $2300 • £1750

Nikkor• $1900 • £1250 Sigma • $825 • £600 Sony • $2000 • £1500

Tamron Canon Nikkor Sigma Sony
Focal length 24-70mm 24-70mm 24-70mm 24-70mm 24-70mm
Aperture F2.8 F2.8 F2.8 F2.8 F2.8
Optical stabilization • Yes • No • No • No • No
Max magnification 0.21x 0.21x 0.19x 0.19x 0.25x
AF motor Ring-type
ultrasonic Ring-type
ultrasonic Ring-type
ultrasonic Ring-type
ultrasonic Ring-type
ultrasonic
Filter thread 82mm 82mm 77mm 82mm 77mm
Weight 825g
(1.82 lb) 805g
(1.77 lb) 900g
(1.98 lb) 790g
(1.74 lb) 955g
(2.11 lb)
Diameter 88mm
(3.5") 89mm
(3.5") 83mm
(3.3") 89mm
(3.3") 83mm
(3.3")
Length 109mm
(4.3") 113mm
(4.5") 133mm
(5.2") 95mm
(3.7") 111mm
(4.4")
Weathersealing • Yes • Yes • Yes • No • No

From that data alone, the Tamron looks like a good deal to me.
Regards.

Phil.

[EdMak]

Most of the pics I have posted here, were taken with a 1970's 29-200mm Tamron, obviously made for 35mm film use. It ceased to auto focus about 3/4 years ago, if necessary can use manually,as I have a matched Tamron Close up filter, was expensive, sure it was over £35, in the 70's. Ed.

[MrB]

Phil, nowhere have I criticised the quality of the Tamron 24-70; I know it is a good lens.

If anyone reads all my posts in this thread, they would see that all I am concerned with is whether this particular lens is an appropriate choice for the camera and for the intended use, and bearing in mind what we have been told here about Kelly's ownership of other competent lenses.

In my opinion, Kelly should not be persuaded to go for any particular lens either by anyone else, or by the fact that it is a good lens compared with others of the same type. Kelly's decision should be arrived at by a careful consideration of ALL the pertinent points raised in other posts here.

[ As an aside to the main topic of this thread, frankly if I were a Nikon user with $1300 available, and with the range of lenses that Kelly already has, I would be upgrading the D3100 body to a Nikon D7200 - Amazon price $1200 - which is a superb machine, with many features that could help improve the output of anyone's photography. ]

Cheers.
Philip

[Lindy]

Phil, nowhere have I criticised the quality of the Tamron 24-70; I know it is a good lens.

If anyone reads all my posts in this thread, they would see that all I am concerned with is whether this particular lens is an appropriate choice for the camera and for the intended use, and bearing in mind what we have been told here about Kelly's ownership of other competent lenses.

In my opinion, Kelly should not be persuaded to go for any particular lens either by anyone else, or by the fact that it is a good lens compared with others of the same type. Kelly's decision should be arrived at by a careful consideration of ALL the pertinent points raised in other posts here.

[ As an aside to the main topic of this thread, frankly if I were a Nikon user with $1300 available, and with the range of lenses that Kelly already has, I would be upgrading the D3100 body to a Nikon D7200 - Amazon price $1200 - which is a superb machine, with many features that could help improve the output of anyone's photography. ]

Cheers.
Philip

Gosh very confused

Spent a couple of days looking at new Nikon bodies and my lack of knowledge is very apparent.
At what point would you buy an FX ,and will my lenses work on that body? From what I've read they will.

It's portrait photography that I specialise in, children, families, parties. It started out
as a hobby then people started to pay me, which was amazing.
Although I'm achieving nice shots with quite a basic kit and my clients are happy with the results I'm a bit lost as to where to go next with upgrading my equipment.
Would an FX body lend itself to my kind of work or would a higher spec DX like the d7200 you suggested do the job just as well?
Cost is obviously an issue having not hit the big time yet! But happy to wait and save if FX would be the way to go.

Thanks for all the help, btw I'm in the UK.

Kelly

[MrB]

Hello again, Kelly.

In the square brackets of my last post, regarding the D7200, I was simply expressing a point of view for my photography - that if I were a Nikon user with some money to spend, I would rather upgrade my equipment by buying a better camera to record my images with my existing lenses, instead of getting the Tamron 24-70 lens.

Again just my opinion, but I would think that there would be little cost/benefit gain to me in going to full-frame. With the usual methods and sizes in which most images are viewed, it seems likely to me that any full-frame advantages are probably over-stated. What I like about having a better camera are features such as - the ergonomics, the level of user-control and customisation, the build quality (e.g. weather-resistance).

Most of my other remarks were intended to convey what might be regarded as some of the general points for you to consider in making your decisions, and spending wisely is not always easy!

As I mentioned at the start, I do not have Nikon kit, so I can only go by the reviews of others. Similarly, doing portraits is not a genre that interest me, so that area must be left to others with the experience to comment on suitable Nikon equipment for that kind of work.

Cheers.
Philip

[Phil J]

Hi Kelly,

Here is a simplified solution to your dilemma.

A high quality lens, on a moderate price camera body will produce superior results over that of an expensive camera body fitted with a moderate quality lens. So, always go for the highest quality lens which you can afford. A high quality lens you will tend to keep for many years, whilst camera bodies you will tend to change as the specification/facilities offered are improved/updated. Indeed, Nikon tend to bring out new models of body very eighteen months to two years. The real plus with Nikon though is that older lenses of exceptional quality will fit and work on the newer bodies. So, investment in quality glass is never wasted. In fact it might be worthwhile spending time investigating the possibility of pre-used high quality lenses which are Nikon fit.

No doubt in a couple of years you will want to upgrade your camera body and it is a comfort to know that the (in particular) FX (full frame) lenses which will work happily with your current body, will also work with a full frame body if you elect to purchase one, as they are designed for full frame/35mm sizes.

As regards to your portraiture. What size of prints are you required to supply your customers? I shoot with a Nikon D300 which is a 12.3 megapixel cropped sensor body. Have a look at some of my stuff on here if you like, or Peter: 'Plantsman' uses the same, so take a look at some of his stuff. From my personal experience the resultant images are easily capable of being printed at A2 size without any special Post Processing being needed. So images for posting on-line are no problem at all.

You cannot go wrong with high quality glass. It's your call of course, as it's your money you're spending. However, in my experience and opinion, good glass before new bodies.

Best regards.

Phil.

[Lindy]

Hi Kelly,

Here is a simplified solution to your dilemma.

A high quality lens, on a moderate price camera body will produce superior results over that of an expensive camera body fitted with a moderate quality lens. So, always go for the highest quality lens which you can afford. A high quality lens you will tend to keep for many years, whilst camera bodies you will tend to change as the specification/facilities offered are improved/updated. Indeed, Nikon tend to bring out new models of body very eighteen months to two years. The real plus with Nikon though is that older lenses of exceptional quality will fit and work on the newer bodies. So, investment in quality glass is never wasted. In fact it might be worthwhile spending time investigating the possibility of pre-used high quality lenses which are Nikon fit.

No doubt in a couple of years you will want to upgrade your camera body and it is a comfort to know that the (in particular) FX (full frame) lenses which will work happily with your current body, will also work with a full frame body if you elect to purchase one, as they are designed for full frame/35mm sizes.

As regards to your portraiture. What size of prints are you required to supply your customers? I shoot with a Nikon D300 which is a 12.3 megapixel cropped sensor body. Have a look at some of my stuff on here if you like, or Peter: 'Plantsman' uses the same, so take a look at some of his stuff. From my personal experience the resultant images are easily capable of being printed at A2 size without any special Post Processing being needed. So images for posting on-line are no problem at all.

You cannot go wrong with high quality glass. It's your call of course, as it's your money you're spending. However, in my experience and opinion, good glass before new bodies.

Best regards.

Phil.

Incredibly helpful, thank you for taking the time Phil

Very tempted by this Tamron seems to meet all my needs.

Many thanks
Kelly

[Phil J]

Hi Kelly,

You're most welcome, I'm only too glad to be of some assistance.

Another thought for you. Why not pop along to your nearest Tamron dealer and ask to try one of these lenses on your camera? I cannot think there would be any objection. By doing so, you would be better placed to judge not only the image quality, but, also the way the camera/lens combination 'feels' to you and the overall weight involved. I have done this in the past and not been refused and have every intention of doing so in the future.

Best regards.

Phil.

[MrB]

Just as I suggested in Post #2 !

Kelly, I do hope that after considering ALL the points raised above, you come to a decision that pleases and benefits you.

All the very best to you with your gear and your photography.

Philip

[EdMak]

Ask the dealer to go outside and take a few pics, I did this often for customers. Ed.

[Phil J]

Hi Kelly,

Try looking here:- http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-used-...t/p1575465

It may be of some help to you and take some of the 'sting' out of the price.

Regards.

Phil.

[Jimbo9948]

Hello All
Been agonising over whether to take the plunge and buy this lens Tamron (Nikon AF) 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD. I have the Nikon d3100 and have only ever bought Nikon lenses. So I wondered if anyone has this lens and as a result would not recommend it. I like the fact it's F2.8 all the way as opposed to the Nikon which is only F2.8 at 24mm. I would like to use it for family portraits. Any advice much appreciated.
Thank you
Lindy

The A007 model of this Tamron lens is excellent. The 2.8 aperture will do you well for portraits. I do own this lens and use it as a Professional Sports Photographer in Florida, USA. In my particular genre it is not my most used piece of glass but definitely deserving of being in my equipment bag. I do use Nikon (D3s) equipment and own Nikon, Tamron and Sigma glass. All do a great job with the higher quality lenses. Your D-3100 will show lots of improvement with this quality lens. Because it is a DX lens it will never outgrow your eventual body upgrades. In general, Tamron has come a long way in quality. If you are still in doubt try renting it if possible and compare with what you are currently using.