Mark, I hadn't realized how innovative Nano coating was.  I do notice a very distinct differences in the lenses that I have used that have it.  Thanks for taking the time to explain.

My impression from reading various reviews and looking at sample images, is that the "onion" effect is visible only at near 100% view and even then, mostly in larger highlights. Maybe someone who actually owns and uses the lens can comment?Anyway, I seriously doubt you'd find yourself having to do a minute of touch-up on every photo shot at a wedding.

While it's good to have input from those who say, "I shot both A and B side-by-side, and I liked B better for the following reasons," I would find it by far more informative to see image comparisons so I could make up my own mind as to whether the differences are enough to matter to me. It would be very valuable if those who have the opportunity to test both lenses would post side-by-side comparison shots with 100% crops to show the differences they observe.Not a criticism, just a plea...

Robert, just because YOU don't have the discernment ability to see the rendering differences between the Tamron 24-70 and the Nikon 24-70 doesn't mean others don't. They're there. Sorry you don't have the ability to see them. Trust me, if (after evaluating the Tamron) I had thought the lens was better, I would have been a buyer. I'm the guy who DID NOT EXPECT to ever own a Sigma in my lifetime who, after evaluating the 35/1.4 Art on a D800, ended up putting down my hard earned cash and selling my Nikkor. No way I expected that outcome. A year ago I would have put 100 bucks down on a bet I'd never own a Sigma. Didn't like them. So I'll put down the cash if something else ends up better after I look at it (as I also did with the Zeiss 21)However, the Tamron didn't produce such a result. Nice lens, sure, better - no. So the two lenses are different; however, it's pretty obvious my standards and what I deem important iin lens performance are higher/different than yours. No worries, they're all good lenses, but don't try to stuff this nonsense that they are the same and that differences don't exist down our throats.-m

Ray Ritchie wrote:My impression from reading various reviews and looking at sample images, is that the "onion" effect is visible only at near 100% view and even then, mostly in larger highlights. Maybe someone who actually owns and uses the lens can comment?Anyway, I seriously doubt you'd find yourself having to do a minute of touch-up on every photo shot at a wedding.Exactly.  Besides For a wedding I simply wouldn't bother, except maybe on any images that were getting printed big.  Keep in mind the only people who notice or care about onion bokeh are other photographers.

Ray Ritchie wrote:My impression from reading various reviews and looking at sample images, is that the "onion" effect is visible only at near 100% view and even then, mostly in larger highlights. Maybe someone who actually owns and uses the lens can comment?Anyway, I seriously doubt you'd find yourself having to do a minute of touch-up on every photo shot at a wedding.Here's a good example - section 8 - Bokeh (maybe it was already posted in the thread). Not sure how critical it is, to my eye Tamron's bokeh doesn't look too pretty.http://photographylife.com/reviews/tamron-24-70mm-f2-8

Shotcents wrote:The "you get what you pay for" mantra is DEAD.The thing people forget about "you get what you pay for" is you have to know what you are paying for.   Is it better performance or is it a brand name?    In the case of lenses it is often a bit of both.  Every review I have see shows the Tamron pretty much on par with the Nikon optically, there might be some slight differences at certain focal lengths but over all they are about the same.  In any case if you took five random images taken with each lens and mixed them up no one could accurately pick which were taken with which lens.  The fact is even if the Nikon is slightly better optically when you pixel peep at 100% it wont make any difference in the final image at normal viewing sizes especially after PP and/or printing. So what is that extra $500 or so for the Nikon really paying for?  Much better optics? nope. nano coating? $700 lenses have it so it can't be that expensive. Better build?  Most people who have handled both say it is about the same but we wouldn't know for sure without some very expensive tests. In any case even if the Nikon is slightly better built I doubt it is by enough to be the differnce between a broken lens or not.  So what's left?  AF speed?, every test I have seen shows no practical difference.   So agian what is that $500 or so extra really getting you?  The word Nikon written on the lens seems to be the real answer.

Mikhail Bogdanov wrote:Ray Ritchie wrote:My impression from reading various reviews and looking at sample images, is that the "onion" effect is visible only at near 100% view and even then, mostly in larger highlights. Maybe someone who actually owns and uses the lens can comment?Anyway, I seriously doubt you'd find yourself having to do a minute of touch-up on every photo shot at a wedding.Here's a good example - section 8 - Bokeh (maybe it was already posted in the thread). Not sure how critical it is, to my eye Tamron's bokeh doesn't look too pretty.http://photographylife.com/reviews/tamron-24-70mm-f2-8No it doesn't.  I would leave it, though--one of those "what's shot is shot" situations.  Same thing with the Flickr thread Josh152 linked, demonstrating the supposed "10 second fix" that didn't really improve the situation.He's right that most people wouldn't care.I still think "you can easily brush the pattern out in post" is a truly lousy suggestion and perhaps the most lame defense of a lens's performance I've ever read--one those gems that only comes out of DP Review forum weirdness at its weirdest.mira

MiraShootsNikon wrote:Mikhail Bogdanov wrote:Ray Ritchie wrote:My impression from reading various reviews and looking at sample images, is that the "onion" effect is visible only at near 100% view and even then, mostly in larger highlights. Maybe someone who actually owns and uses the lens can comment?Anyway, I seriously doubt you'd find yourself having to do a minute of touch-up on every photo shot at a wedding.Here's a good example - section 8 - Bokeh (maybe it was already posted in the thread). Not sure how critical it is, to my eye Tamron's bokeh doesn't look too pretty.http://photographylife.com/reviews/tamron-24-70mm-f2-8No it doesn't.  I would leave it, though--one of those "what's shot is shot" situations.  Same thing with the Flickr thread Josh152 linked, demonstrating the supposed "10 second fix" that didn't really improve the situation.He's right that most people wouldn't care.I still think "you can easily brush the pattern out in post" is a truly lousy suggestion and perhaps the most lame defense of a lens's performance I've ever read--one those gems that only comes out of DP Review forum weirdness at its weirdest.miraDid you read that thread?  Person who posted was just doing a quick and dirty job to demonstrate it.   If you spend more time you can get very good results.  But as I said before their is really no reason to worry about fixing things like onion bokeh that only hyper critical photographers will even notice or care about anyway.

I shoot all my images in RAW and process according to what I want.  Will a change in micro contrast favoring the Nikon be noticeable after I tweak the contrast slider on the Tamron?  Thanks in advance for your answer.

Josh152 wrote:MiraShootsNikon wrote:Mikhail Bogdanov wrote:Ray Ritchie wrote:My impression from reading various reviews and looking at sample images, is that the "onion" effect is visible only at near 100% view and even then, mostly in larger highlights. Maybe someone who actually owns and uses the lens can comment?Anyway, I seriously doubt you'd find yourself having to do a minute of touch-up on every photo shot at a wedding.Here's a good example - section 8 - Bokeh (maybe it was already posted in the thread). Not sure how critical it is, to my eye Tamron's bokeh doesn't look too pretty.http://photographylife.com/reviews/tamron-24-70mm-f2-8No it doesn't.  I would leave it, though--one of those "what's shot is shot" situations.  Same thing with the Flickr thread Josh152 linked, demonstrating the supposed "10 second fix" that didn't really improve the situation.He's right that most people wouldn't care.I still think "you can easily brush the pattern out in post" is a truly lousy suggestion and perhaps the most lame defense of a lens's performance I've ever read--one those gems that only comes out of DP Review forum weirdness at its weirdest.miraDid you read that thread?  Person who posted was just doing a quick and dirty job to demonstrate it.   If you spend more time you can get very good results.  But as I said before their is really no reason to worry about fixing things like onion bokeh that only hyper critical photographers will even notice or care about anyway.What a fuster cluck.Last night it was a "ten second fix," now you're supposed to spend more time on it if you really care, and, anyway, you're "hypercritical" if you do.  And if you didn't even really notice it before Josh152 brought it up, well, there it is: welcome to the hypercritical club, jerk.Whatever.  The suggestion that you'd "correct" bokeh with a lightroom brush is an impractical idea at best, soul-sucking at worst.  The linked flickr thread and discussion doesn't demonstrate a "10 second fix" so much as it suggests how tedious a more effective adjustment would actually be.  I guess you'd do it for a spot-perfect gallery print, but then that would make you the "hypercritical" type for whom this Tamron wonder wouldn't measure up, right?So now we're here: "It's the BEST, except that it has these flaws that, actually, are YOUR flaws because you noticed them!   And, probably, you didn't even notice them--I pointed them out!  Which makes YOU a brand snob or something!"I second Mira's "Ugh."With every subsequent Josh152 and/or Shortcents post in this thread, I feel like I can almost hear the collective sound of Tamron's marketing people smacking their foreheads: "when will these jokers stop 'endorsing' our product, already?"My takeaway from this thread is something like this: the Tamron 24-70 seems to be a fine product, but a few of the people who shoot it are . . . not.M.

MarkJH wrote:So now we're here: "It's the BEST, except that it has these flaws that, actually, are YOUR flaws because you noticed them!   And, probably, you didn't even notice them--I pointed them out!  Which makes YOU a brand snob or something!"Sweet jesus, it's the best forum snark I've ever seen.  Oh, snap!

The border quality at 24mm was not acceptable... The focus was also not very unreliable / inconsistent.

anotherMike wrote:Robert, just because YOU don't have the discernment ability to see the rendering differences between the Tamron 24-70 and the Nikon 24-70 doesn't mean others don't. They're there.I have a pair of monitors in front of me that cost more than most people's whole computer system. Please show me the online samples that support your statement.It's really exhausting to read this stuff, but somehow all of these "testers" have no files left to show.However, the Tamron didn't produce such a result. Nice lens, sure, better - no. So the two lenses are different; however, it's pretty obvious my standards and what I deem important iin lens performance are higher/different than yours.There's a comment you probably should have thought about before hitting the POST button. Since I work with mainly people and seek the best resolution from a lens, along with employing MOSTLY handheld techniques doing candids, why don't you explain how my Nikon 24-70, which is less sharp at 70mm and has no VR, was going to stand up against the SHARPER Tamron optic that has VC?Any tiny difference in micro contrast will be nullified in proper post technique, but not sharpness. Otherwise rendering of these lenses is incredibly close. I give a edge to the Nikon in bokeh, but my actual SUBJECT takes priority.Now, IF I did scenic work using the wider part of the lens, I might choose the Nikon. But I don't do that enough for the Nikon to be a smart pick.I'm sorry you don't understand how the diverse strengths of a lens might suit a truly discerning shooter. Perhaps in time you'll develop a greater grasp of the fundamentals.So there!Robert

Time to break out the eyeball pics, Mike...

Before this thread I didn't even know about "onion bokeh". Being a curious one, just slapped Nikkor 24-70 on my D300 and grabbed few snaps. 70mm/2.8, manual focus at ~10ft, late afternoon sun thru the trees ~ 50-60 yards away. Don't see any damn onions at all. Could somebody please try similar test with Tamron?

Mikhail Bogdanov wrote:Before this thread I didn't even know about "onion bokeh". Being a curious one, just slapped Nikkor 24-70 on my D300 and grabbed few snaps. 70mm/2.8, manual focus at ~10ft, late afternoon sun thru the trees ~ 50-60 yards away. Don't see any damn onions at all. Could somebody please try similar test with Tamron?Not the greatest bokeh. The 24-70 2.8 was never wonderful in that respect. The whole point is to have a single zoom with near-prime quality and the 24-70 from Nikon or Tamron pull that off.But it's STILL a compromise and if you want ultimate sharpness and bokeh then you need those new G primes. There is no substitute for faster glass.No way would I rebuy the Nikon now.Robert

Shotcents wrote:Mikhail Bogdanov wrote:Before this thread I didn't even know about "onion bokeh". Being a curious one, just slapped Nikkor 24-70 on my D300 and grabbed few snaps. 70mm/2.8, manual focus at ~10ft, late afternoon sun thru the trees ~ 50-60 yards away. Don't see any damn onions at all. Could somebody please try similar test with Tamron?Not the greatest bokeh. The 24-70 2.8 was never wonderful in that respect. The whole point is to have a single zoom with near-prime quality and the 24-70 from Nikon or Tamron pull that off.But it's STILL a compromise and if you want ultimate sharpness and bokeh then you need those new G primes. There is no substitute for faster glass.No way would I rebuy the Nikon now.RobertIs that the official judgment from your two monitors that cost more than everyone else's whole computer system?  I mean, I'm not just going to take your word for it if you're eyeballing that random bokeh blob on an iPad or something.(That sound you hear, by the way, is the popcorn I'm crunching while I watch you dig a *gaping* credibility hole even deeper.  At the rate you're shoveling, not even a mountain of poorly lit, sallow-toned test shots of annoyed children and/or cats will be tall enough to help you see out.  Might want to pace yourself, chief.)mira

Shotcents wrote:Mikhail Bogdanov wrote:Before this thread I didn't even know about "onion bokeh". Being a curious one, just slapped Nikkor 24-70 on my D300 and grabbed few snaps. 70mm/2.8, manual focus at ~10ft, late afternoon sun thru the trees ~ 50-60 yards away. Don't see any damn onions at all. Could somebody please try similar test with Tamron?Not the greatest bokeh. The 24-70 2.8 was never wonderful in that respect. The whole point is to have a single zoom with near-prime quality and the 24-70 from Nikon or Tamron pull that off.But it's STILL a compromise and if you want ultimate sharpness and bokeh then you need those new G primes. There is no substitute for faster glass.No way would I rebuy the Nikon now.RobertHi!Maybe  shooting at f/8 will help the 24-70's background....() :Nikon D3,Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED 1/320s f/8.0 at 70.0mm iso200Nikon D3,Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED 1/1250s f/2.8 at 70.0mm iso400Seriously, this "bokeh" stuff can be so hard to evaluate on a few non standard exposures (at least hard for me!).As far as "ultimate sharpness and bokeh", there are some conditions where the new G primes pull way ahead....but that's a bit off topic....Part of lens selection depends of course on what the user intends to use it for.A landscape guy will usually want/need edge to edge sharpness, whereas a portrait guy might care less.Some photographers will think of VR/VC as a necessity, whereas others might consider it just one more thing that might break.Some will need optimal performance on the wide end, others on the long end.Weather sealing might be very important to some, but not for othersEtc.Etc.But the Title "new King in Town ?", even posed as a question, might be a  little presumptuous as an across the board endorsement.My own particular needs?Well personally, I' still peeved that I got stuck with a $600 bill to fix the now well known 24-70 stiff zoom ring problem caused buy a defective helicoid, with Nikon using  the usual claim of "impact damage" as an excuse to not honor their warranty.I was so mad, that I trialed a Zeiss 25 f/2 and was ready to publish how much better it was than the 24-70. Alas I returned the Zeiss and kept my (now repaired ) Nikon....RB

Shotcents wrote:Not the greatest bokeh. The 24-70 2.8 was never wonderful in that respect. The whole point is to have a single zoom with near-prime quality and the 24-70 from Nikon or Tamron pull that off.But it's STILL a compromise and if you want ultimate sharpness and bokeh then you need those new G primes. There is no substitute for faster glass.No way would I rebuy the Nikon now.RobertWhere did I say anything about the greatest bokeh? Still, it's not too bad for a fast zoom lens. It was just a quick and dirty test to see that onion thing mentioned few times in the thread. Also I don't understand why you compare zoom lens with fast  primes (not necessarily G ones BTW).