24-70 2.8 Nikon vs. Tamron Review of Sorts

I am looking to fill the medium zoom in my lens lineup for my Nikon D810. After reading numerous reviews, I decided to give the tried and true Nikon 24-70 a go, along with the relatively new upstart from Tamron. The Tamron has VR, but that really is irrelevant for me, as I always have my camera on a tripod.

My testing methodology is pretty dang basic. I have an 8 foot wood fence in my back yard. I point the camera at the fence and square it up as best I can. I then shoot images at various focal lengths, wide open and stopped down a bit. In this case f/2.8 and f/8.0. I then do some pixel peeping. I do not do any sharpening of the files, merely convert the raw files with no adjustments at all. In this case, I shot them both at 24mm, 50mm and 70mm.

I am not posting any files, but will share my observations.


At 24mm and 2.8, the Tamron had noticeably better corners. At 8.0, the difference narrowed but the Tamron still looked better. Distortion at 24mm was very close between the two (the fence board edges make it easy to see distortion). At 50mm, the Nikon corners were slightly better at both apertures, but it was close. At 70mm, the Tamron corners looked better at both.

The most interesting observation of all, dead center at all focal lengths and apertures, the Tamron was distinctly sharper. The Nikon was very useable, but the Tamron was far better. The Tamron was very, very sharp at center.

Per the reviews I read, the Tamron is supposed to be much better with chromatic abberation, but is a bit worse with flare when shooting directly into the sun.

Given that the Tamron (after a $100 mail in rebate) is $700 cheaper, it is pretty much a no-brainer which lens I will keep.

P.S. I took another look at the files at 24mm. The Tamron actually has less distortion than the Nikon.

Very interesting, especially the bit about the center sharpness.

I am wondering how the Tamron would do at higher f numbers, such as f-11, or f-16 with regard to sharpness and chromatic aberration?

The flare issue shouldn't be a big deal for you, since I know you're really careful to guard against flare.

Have fun with your new lens!

--P

Thanks for sharing, Harley.

Significant cost savings and improvement in performance?

It’s exciting to know that one need not stick with Canon or Nikon lenses when shooting with these bodies.

I can say for sure that the performance of my Canon 24-105 leaves much to be desired when shooting anything smaller than f9. It was a disappointment when viewing sharpness for the first time, knowing that small apertures would be used often. In fact it was my perception of poor performance with this lens that led me to learn about focus blending.

Cost saving and performance gains such as you have described seems like a game changer.

Your post made me check around on the web and indeed, you are not alone in your conclusions.

Thanks for the eye opener.

Dang it, too bad we’re just past Christmas….

Thanks Harley. I've been looking at the Tamron lens since my old, trusty Nikkor 28-70 crapped out recently. They want $600 to repair it but I think my money would be better spent buying the Tamron 24-70. I like the fact that is has VR (or the Tamron equivalent). I never use VR shooting landscapes since I shoot everything on a tripod, but it would come in handy shooting the g'kids birthdays, etc. It seems the older I get, the more I shake.

I also appreciate the review, Harley.

However, Tamaron is notorious for poor quality construction and their warranty does not cover dust or moisture getting inside the lens.

Thanks for the review Harley some good info here.