www.photography.cafe

...is amazing.

Just for your information about other lenses I use(or used) to compare:
Had Nikon 24-70 F2.8 back in 2008-sold it-,used since than: nikkor 28-70 F2.8, 16-35 F4 vr and 28mm AF-S G F1.8 in the wide angle range next to more. 70-200VRII from 70mm upwards next to other.

Now about the 24-70 vc:

Bought this lens last week at Art & Craft after long debate and reading tons of reviews on Dpreview , Photozone, Photo.net, lensrentals and one more at Photography Blog next to several owners opinions on fredmiranda.com .

The first copy I had was not very sharp wide open. I exchanged it after approx. 100 test shots and got another one.
The second copy is simply sharper than any zoom I've ever used before, also wide open and from 24 to 70mm.

• I compared it to my 28mm AF-S F1.8 at F2.8 and I barely could see any difference in sharpness.
• At 70mm and F2.8 I can't notice any difference in center sharpness with my 70-200 vrII
• It focuses very fast and silent and the VC is what I would have liked with my 24-70 F2.8 Nikon back in 2008.
• Build is very solid and the size of this lens pleases me much better than the 24-70 Nikon, weight is about the same but it's shorter.
• I did controlled test shots on tripod with LVAF and normal AF. No visible difference from 24 to 70mm.
• I was taking pictures of flowers at 70mm and as close as possible. The detail is stunning and the AF works even perfect at F2.8.

Two minus points:

• I would liked have seen zoom ring and AF ring switch place
• Sun cap is very stiff to mount and click on the lens cilinder which might bring unnecessary wear. I informed Tamron Belgium about this in relation to my 5 year warranty

No complaints about bokeh until now. (Some users report onion bokeh)

One thing to consider while going for this lens: There might be some more sample variation among 24-70 VC than what you see among the Nikon and Canon 24-70 F2.8 counterparts. My first copy wasn't sharp wide open, while my second is simply incredible sharp from F2.8...
But, in relation to the "good or bad lens samples" I strongly believe in lens-body match. One lens can be a dream on one body and terrible back or front focusing on another one.... TMHO the match between the bodies yaw and pitch setting has to cover the AF alignment of the lens... Would love to read Marianne Oelund or another expert on this subject.

I will add pictures of the test shots and possible some real life samples later this week when I have more time and when it stops raining here.

Thanks for your attention and kindest regards,
Stany

It is remarkable how good these lenses from Tamron, Tokina and Sigma have become. Only a few years ago there was quite a difference between the makes of Nikon, Canon and Pentax and the independent lens makers. Nowadays they are almost on par with the originals and often these lenses nicely fill the gap in the line up the camera producing companies have left or they produce lenses for a lot more modest price. Nice example are the Tokina 14-24 for about half the price of the originals, the Tamron 90 mm and the long zoom lenses by Sigma.
The combo of the Tamron 2.8/24-70 and the 2.8/70-200 almost equal the Nikon quality for a lot less money. Definitely worth looking at - provided you are not a fan boy.

Until now, one sample taken wide open:

Underneath picture and crop are from a one click conversion from the original NEF file, NO post processing at all.

Image was taken at iso 200 at 58mm, 1/500 sec and F2.8

The scene as seen in Nikon ViewNX2 with AF point rectangle:



And a 100% crop

Both underneath pictures are taken at F2.8, no sharpening in PP...

The focus area of underneath image as seen in Nikon ViewNX2



The focus area of underneath image as seen in Nikon ViewNX2:


This image was initially a little underexposed which I corrected in Capture NX2

Tamron 24-70 VC on D800e might be even used for close up - because of a combination of high sharpness of the lens in combination with D800 high pixel count...

Original scene of the underneath picture:



Above image is a 66.5% crop of the original and after that resized to 1024 px longest side to fit on this forum...



A 43% crop of the above image, resized to 1024 px longest side


Underneath image is taken at iso 1600, F11, handhold, 1/640 sec


And a 100% crop of the original of the above image:




And a 100% crop of the above image:

Stany, I certainly agree 100%. I have only had mine for 2 weeks but it is one amazing lens. Comparing my Nikon 24mm f1.4 with the Tamron 24-70, both at f4, it is almost impossible to see a resolution difference. In fact, I consider it better than my old Nikon 24-70 (it is certainly smaller!) AND it has VC. LOVE this lens!!!! Nice review. I use the Nikon D600.
By the way, very nice photos. Excellent.

Nog meer gezien en moet eerlijk zeggen dat Tamron aardig de Nikon kwalitieit benaderd of zo niet geëvenaard heeft! Goed te zien bij 100% krop van de hagedis, prachtig! Zo is inderdaad met wat minder geld kwaliteit in huis te halen! Landschappen zijn gewoon goed te noemen! Deze Nikonfreak zal niet snel toegeven!

Ook de landschappen zijn prima!

BNikolai wrote:Nog meer gezien en moet eerlijk zeggen dat Tamron aardig de Nikon kwalitieit benaderd of zo niet geëvenaard heeft! Goed te zien bij 100% krop van de hagedis, prachtig! Zo is inderdaad met wat minder geld kwaliteit in huis te halen! Landschappen zijn gewoon goed te noemen! Deze Nikonfreak zal niet snel toegeven! Ook de landschappen zijn prima!

I had the Nikon 24-70 F2.8 before and TMHO the tamron is simply better because it has the same IQ but with VC. Upto that the tamron is less bulky.

It seems to be a new trend that started about 10 years ago.
Tamron, Sigma and Tokina (and a little different in their approach, Cosina + Samyang) were manufacturers of lenses that were, although of a little lesser quality, a cheaper alternative to the well known brands of the camera manufacturers.

Things have changed nowadays; Sigma with its "art series" and 18-35/1,8 and now Tamron with its new 70-200 and 24-70/2.8 are competing with Pentax, Sony, Nikon and Canon on the same playing field when it comes to quality. Their prices have risen, but are still not at all at the same level, so these are still a 'poor mans alternative'.

I think this is an upcoming trend. The independent manufacturers have a different financial structure when it comes to costs than the camera gear makers; they don't have to cover losses of camera sales by means of selling their lenses and other equipment at a premium price. This is enjoyable, but also a concern for the future of the camera makers. They will no longer be able to think about profit maximisation, they will even have to take care to stay alive.

Luckily there will always be fan boys....

Agreed! I have usually favored Nikon pro lenses over 3rd party lenses. Now my Sigma 35mm f1.4 and Tamron 24-70 VC are my favorites. Heck, the 24-70 gives an honest 3 stops - and sometimes 4 - of vibration control. Amazing glass that is slightly less expensive and slightly lighter. Reminds me of 28 years ago when Tamron came out with their 90mm macro that stunned the photographic industry. To this date it is still an excellent lens! This is a far cry from the Sigma * lens of just a few years ago.