Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD ($1,299.00)"A DxOMark Overall Score of 29 ranks the Tamron 1st for image quality on professional standard zooms, just pushing the own brand Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G AD into second with 28 points, and is well ahead of the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM with 23.The Tamron offers better sharpness overall, scoring 17 P-Mpix, compared to 15 P-Mpix for the Nikon, good performance at f/2.8 and boasts significantly better chromatic aberration results, too.What’s more with a $1299 price tag it’s a whooping $600 cheaper than the own brand alternative making it superb value for money for Nikon shooters."

I don't think so, at least the copy of the Tamron I tested wasn't better than the Nikkor. The VC is great and for me it's the only advantage. Maybe their copy of the Nikkor wasn't that good?I see DxO as any other reviews website. You just have to read a handful of those to reach any conclusions. Check this comparison:http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_vs_Tamron_24-70mm_comparison/From their comparison it seems that the Tamron is slightly superior at 24mm, and I may agree. That weakness of the Nikkor is mostly visible in short distance targets, but in "real world" shots you couldn't see that much of a difference.

Is that the Tamron is so close to the Nikon/Canon optically that this discussion is even taking place.  When you factor in the VC and price along with the pro level IQ and build quality the Tamron is a no brainer.  They only potential sticking point about the lens it that it is not quite as long at 70mm as the Nikon/canon lens.

There is more to photography than sharpness alone, and if the Nikkor already wins in most of the focal range, there are other things that make it superior. Those things aren't mentioned in most reviews but you can see it in sample images. I was about to keep the Tamron but one week later I returned it for the Nikkor. I'm not saying that the Nikkor is $500 better, but it's definitely the best.

Jose Rocha wrote:There is more to photography than sharpness alone, ...Indeed, image stabilisation f.i.

The Tamron might be a sharp lens thats if you get a good copy, I had mine for over a month when I had to send it back to have lens focus recalibrated and hopefully fixed, below f6.3 the lens was quiet blurry or out of focus on the RHS.I had a similar problem with the Tamron 18-50 f 2.8 a few years back on my D300, after this episode I don't think i would ever get another Tamron lens again as quality control is a bit lacking.

stany buyle wrote:Jose Rocha wrote:There is more to photography than sharpness alone, ...Indeed, image stabilisation f.i.Actually, I was talking about optical properties.

rpps wrote:The Tamron might be a sharp lens thats if you get a good copy, I had mine for over a month when I had to send it back to have lens focus recalibrated and hopefully fixed, below f6.3 the lens was quiet blurry or out of focus on the RHS.I had a similar problem with the Tamron 18-50 f 2.8 a few years back on my D300, after this episode I don't think i would ever get another Tamron lens again as quality control is a bit lacking.And I had a Nikon AF-S 24-70 2.8G bought new which would not be in focus at all FLs with any fine tune value (the difference in AF fine tune values for 50mm and the ends was around 20 AF tune points). Two months and two visits with Nikon service and it was returned to me with "that's the best we can do". Sold it back to the store at a loss of like $400.I had an issue with my copy of the Tamron's VC at certain shutter speeds. Gave it to Tamron who without my asking even handed me a new unit after 10 days as they didn't want to inconvenience me.It's not as if Nikon QC is any better and when you get a Nikon lemon, you're stuffed.

Al Giordano wrote:Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD ($1,299.00)"A DxOMark Overall Score of 29 ranks the Tamron 1st for image quality on professional standard zooms, just pushing the own brand Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G AD into second with 28 points, and is well ahead of the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM with 23.The Tamron offers better sharpness overall, scoring 17 P-Mpix, compared to 15 P-Mpix for the Nikon, good performance at f/2.8 and boasts significantly better chromatic aberration results, too.What’s more with a $1299 price tag it’s a whooping $600 cheaper than the own brand alternative making it superb value for money for Nikon shooters."So, there's this:http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/tamron-24-70-f2-8-vc-issue10% failure?  Well, it'd be enough to keep me from being interested in the design.  And I'd be skeptical about glue-seated-in-ABS construction lasting over the long haul.  Lensrentals often publishes tear downs; compare this construction with the Canon 24-70 L equivalent.However, Tamron's service appears to be *excellent.*  Drawing healthy contrast with Nikon's recent behavior, they actually acknowledged the problem, dove into the specific user experience, and were highly accommodating with brisk fixes and replacements.I don't know if that's enough to make it a wash or not, but I still think I'd stay away.mira

Jose Rocha wrote:stany buyle wrote:Jose Rocha wrote:There is more to photography than sharpness alone, ...Indeed, image stabilisation f.i.Actually, I was talking about optical properties.Perhaps you should be more specific as to what optical properties you are referring too.  Every review I have seen shows the Tamron and Nikon to be so close it's not really worth worrying about.

Josh152 wrote:Jose Rocha wrote:stany buyle wrote:Jose Rocha wrote:There is more to photography than sharpness alone, ...Indeed, image stabilisation f.i.Actually, I was talking about optical properties.Perhaps you should be more specific as to what optical properties you are referring too.  Every review I have seen shows the Tamron and Nikon to be so close it's not really worth worrying about.Not to take a "side" in this somewhat specific argument, but the optical attribute that'd push me toward the Nikon is the Nano Crystal Coating the 24-70 design uses on an internal element.The result of the Nano Crystal technology is one of those things that can be hard to measure but pretty easy to see.  There's an obvious benefit in veiling flare resistance, but it also contributes an extra crispness and "snap" to the render that's pretty special.  Access to Nano Crystal technology is one of the big reasons to shoot in the Nikon system.(And, there's the construction issue Lens Rentals blogged about a while ago.  Tamron appears to be using small beads of glue to hold the 24-70's larger lens elements in place rather than shims and screws. Obviously, metal shim mounts + machine screws = durability, adjustability, repairability, while beads of glue = ?)It's better to be able to shoot than not, so kudos to Tamron for delivering quality on a budget.  But these stories that report "$1200 lens better than $1800 lens!" are more often the stuff of hopes and dreams than reality.What's wrong with just congratulating Tamron on delivering a decent product-per-price in its own right?  It doesn't have to be better than the Nikkor to be useful.

Thumbs up to the Tamron team.  The fact that this lens is even in the discussion alongside of the mighty Nikkor speaks LOUDLY.  I'm not a brand loyalist in any way: rather; I always strive to spend my hard-earned money as wisely as possible.  I'm also not in the market, currently, for this type of lens, however, if I were, I would probably go with the Tamron--here's why1) First and foremost,  6-Year Tamron Warranty.  I've owned plenty of Tamron lenses and always got good, prompt service.  Whether or not the lens is glued or screwed together, means little to me--either design can fail.  If it does, a 6-Year Warranty is a huge comfort factor.2) Price--Tamron puts more than $500 back in my pocket, while providing performance which is, at least, on par with the Nikkor.  The debate as to which is slightly superior will likely never be settled, but the facts will remain.3) Tamron is a little lighter and has excellent VC4) Tamron has weather sealing--ultra sonic AF motor--Professional build5) Tamron has proven its ability to put competitive glass out there, for far <$$ than this lens.  For example, the 28-75 f/2.8 has provided tremendous value and quality for many years, to many shooters.  There are plenty of people who prefer the Tamron 28-70 over the Nikkor 24-70, for the weight factor alone & are willing to concede the small differential in performance because of this.  With this new adventure on Tamron's part (a +$1000 WA zoom) I would have a lot of faith in getting more for my $$ than I would with the Nikkor.  BestJT

Good to see that review.I tried the Tamron and I did find it ABOUT THE SAME optically, a little sharper at 70mm and a little less sharp at 35mm. Since I spend more time at the long end I judged the Tamron better.And the Tamron has VC, which opens up other possibilities. I finally traded my Nikon 24-70 for primes, but if I did it again I'd buy the Tamron. It's a better product.Robert

The Nano coating is a really good point.  What exactly is this process and why does it distinguish itself apart from the competitors?  All lens vendors tout their respective coatings.  Why is Nikon's any better?

I think the reliability and durability concerns is a huge factor in lens consideration.  I think Sigma has really stepped up their game in this regard.  And I would also give Tamron the benefit of doubt with recent lenses as the big three are competing head on for quality and value.I wish someone would do an analysis of the big three lens makers quality, reliability, and performance; in addition to all the great articles on sharpness, vignetting, CA, etc.

moony16 wrote:Thumbs up to the Tamron team.  The fact that this lens is even in the discussion alongside of the mighty Nikkor speaks LOUDLY.  I'm not a brand loyalist in any way: rather; I always strive to spend my hard-earned money as wisely as possible.  I'm also not in the market, currently, for this type of lens, however, if I were, I would probably go with the Tamron--here's why1) First and foremost,  6-Year Tamron Warranty.  I've owned plenty of Tamron lenses and always got good, prompt service.  Whether or not the lens is glued or screwed together, means little to me--either design can fail.  If it does, a 6-Year Warranty is a huge comfort factor.2) Price--Tamron puts more than $500 back in my pocket, while providing performance which is, at least, on par with the Nikkor.  The debate as to which is slightly superior will likely never be settled, but the facts will remain.3) Tamron is a little lighter and has excellent VC4) Tamron has weather sealing--ultra sonic AF motor--Professional build5) Tamron has proven its ability to put competitive glass out there, for far <$$ than this lens.  For example, the 28-75 f/2.8 has provided tremendous value and quality for many years, to many shooters.  There are plenty of people who prefer the Tamron 28-70 over the Nikkor 24-70, for the weight factor alone & are willing to concede the small differential in performance because of this.  With this new adventure on Tamron's part (a +$1000 WA zoom) I would have a lot of faith in getting more for my $$ than I would with the Nikkor.  BestJTExactly what I was trying to say.   Even if the Nikon is slightly better due to some undefinable optical quality or has a slightly stronger build like some people in this thread are suggesting, it really isn't by enough the over come the $500 price difference or the fact that the Tamron has VC.   I mean lets be real.  No one is going to be able to look at two different images and pick out which one was shot on the Tamron and which was shot on the Nikon.  Very few people, including pros are rough enough with their gear for Tamron using glue to even matter and any impact strong enough the damage/destroy the Tamron is very likely going to do the same to the Nikon.When you consider everything, build quality, optical quality, the VC, Price, the 6 year Warranty, and the excellent customer service if you have to use the warranty,  Tamron has the over all best 24-70mm f/2.8 currently on the market.

Al Giordano wrote:I think the reliability and durability concerns is a huge factor in lens consideration.  I think Sigma has really stepped up their game in this regard.  And I would also give Tamron the benefit of doubt with recent lenses as the big three are competing head on for quality and value.I wish someone would do an analysis of the big three lens makers quality, reliability, and performance; in addition to all the great articles on sharpness, vignetting, CA, etc....what are the "Big 3" lens makers?Nikon, Sigma, Tamron?Tamron, Sigma, Tokina?Tamron, Sigma, Zeiss?Canon, Nikon, Sony?

Josh152 wrote:Jose Rocha wrote:stany buyle wrote:Jose Rocha wrote:There is more to photography than sharpness alone, ...Indeed, image stabilisation f.i.Actually, I was talking about optical properties.Perhaps you should be more specific as to what optical properties you are referring too.  Every review I have seen shows the Tamron and Nikon to be so close it's not really worth worrying about.You're right, sorry. Just to specify what I liked more on the Nikkor:- Overall contrast and Micro-contrast (more vivid images and more sharpness "feel" of fine details)- Flare resistance- Bokeh (this was very noticeable)- Overall resolution (except at 24mm in the corners, at short distance)Other things I liked more on the Nikkor:- AF speed (the difference was like night and day in low light)- Build quality (the Tamron's loose rear element creeps me out when changing lenses)- Compactness (the Nikkor is longer but thinner and feels better in *my* hands)Things I liked on the Tamron:- VCOverall, I decided to spend $500 more on the Nikkor and I'm glad I did. YMMV of course...

paulski66 wrote:Al Giordano wrote:I think the reliability and durability concerns is a huge factor in lens consideration.  I think Sigma has really stepped up their game in this regard.  And I would also give Tamron the benefit of doubt with recent lenses as the big three are competing head on for quality and value.I wish someone would do an analysis of the big three lens makers quality, reliability, and performance; in addition to all the great articles on sharpness, vignetting, CA, etc....what are the "Big 3" lens makers?Nikon, Sigma, Tamron?Tamron, Sigma, Tokina?Tamron, Sigma, Zeiss?Canon, Nikon, Sony?For units sold , Nikon, Canon (those two interchangable, pardon the pun) and Sigma?.

Shotcents wrote:Good to see that review.I tried the Tamron and I did find it ABOUT THE SAME optically, a little sharper at 70mm and a little less sharp at 35mm. Since I spend more time at the long end I judged the Tamron better.And the Tamron has VC, which opens up other possibilities. I finally traded my Nikon 24-70 for primes, but if I did it again I'd buy the Tamron.It's a better product.RobertWith or without employee discount:~?