How does this lens compare to Nikon's 24-70 f/2.8G ED AF-S?
1675721
I use Canon gear so I do not know. Please read and compare reviews online for the Tamron and Nikon; in my experience the Tamron is excellent optically, in build and reliability, considerably cheaper and is the only fast zoom with vibration reduction/stabilization. 6 year warranty also.
1675722
Basically it is the same focal number and aperture of both, but the boken and sharpness of Nikon are little better. This is the reason for the high price of Nikon. I have a Tamron SP 24-70mm and it works great without breaking my bank account
1251771
i bought that lens for my d7000 and had great success with it . i gave my daughter the camera and lens and since have bought the d800 and liked the lens so much i bought it again for that camera . with that said i recently sold that lens and am in the process of getting the newest nikon lens the 80-400mm . to sum up my reply great lens but its my understanding that because of the wide range the sensor area is always affected but should work fine when used on your d700...i believe this lens is a great buy
1011661
Hi thomyi, you may try checking on the link below for the direct comparison between the two lenses. -Elyhttp://store.sony.com/gsi/webstore/WFS/SNYNA-SNYUS-Site/en_US/-/USD/ViewProductCompareService-Show?CategoryID=on0KmUBxnZQAAAFEYhlScEcW
1445790
How does this lens compare to the Sony 70-200 f/2.8 (Mark I) with an adapter to E mount?
1190460
I have a D7000 and use this lens a lot. Good overall lens-sharp good with landscapes.
357728
It's the only lens I use for my 800. With occasional hiccups trying to focus through car window glass. It's sharp enough for my varied uses. I was sold on the lens by tests performed and published on the blog Photography Life and you'll also find info on the 24-70, but the 2.8 will give you a softer background.
759247
Even better. The 1.4 is rock solid compared to the flimsy 1.8, and slightly faster. Ten times as expensive, but may be worth it. If you're still thinking of adding a new zoom to your arsenal, look at the 24-105L, as well. It's pretty much a coin toss, as far as IQ, with the 24-70L, but it adds IS. So, it's one stop slower, but it gains about 3 stops due to the IS, so it's actually better for low-light than the "faster" lens. And longer, too.
984156
I am mostly using this lens for outdoors pictures (landscapes) on a Nikon D7000, since almost 6 months. I have taken a thousands pictures. Image quality has been so far most of time superb with my D7000. For sure, this lens are perfect choice for D7100 as well ... but don't expect the same performance of a Nikkor 17-35 2.8 or a Nikkor 14-24 2.8. You get what you pay for.
448719
i dont have the 24 85mm to truly give you a comparison. but according to a few reviews and test i saw the 24 85mm has a slightly better sharpness wile the 24 to 120 has more focal length. so it depends on what you are going to be shooting and what you want to pay for your lens.and fyi if you go for a 24 to 120mm i dont reccomend this version of it as its one of nikons worst modern lenses . get the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR its the revised version and supost to be a better lens. or if you really want focal length the 28mm to 300mm hope this helps
2038042
go to nikonusa.com.. look at lenses you have the ability to check a box and compare lenes, side by side.. i love my 24-85...
1850441
I used 28-135 for more than 8 years and was happy with it. Recently, I purchased 24-105 and I was very surprised. AF is fast, image is clear, IS is working very good. 24-105 is excellent lens and much better than 28-135.
1150472
"Nick Kovacs says:way too slow...I tried it and quickly purchased a 70-200 2.8"LOL, how can the 24-70mm f/2.8L be slower than the 70-200mm f/2.8L which is equally "fast"? I own both and I notice no difference between the two, other than their reach of course.
933398
This lens does not have macro, or what Nikon labels "micro" focusing capability. I will say, though, that the 24-70/2.8 takes such beautiful images that it stays on my camera about 80-90% of the time. Check out the 105/2.8 "micro-Nikkor" lens for macro as well as good portrait alternative.
558459
This lens is second to none. It has great contrast and clarity even at f/2.8. It has low distortion, focuses quickly, accepts filters, and works on full-frame cameras as well as "cropped sensor" DX ones. And if you hit someone with it, they'll probably go down. If you have a DX camera, you can save money by compromising on some of those features. Tokina's 16-50 f/2.8 DX lens is well-regarded and perhaps the closest to the Nikon 17-35. It's supposedly sharp and has good contrast both wide open and stopped down. It's solidly built. Landscape shooters like it. $600 Nikon's 12-24 f/4G DX lens is also very good. It might be too wide for you. $1000 Nikon's 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 DX is good, though not in the same class. $675 Note that I have experience only with the 17-35 (bought used). The rest is based on conversations with people who own those lenses.
1509565
I have shot 3 weddings with this lens and I haven't had a problem with it, it's been great. I have used the 70-200 and its just a bit faster that the 80-200 but I can't really tell the difference.
1784423
The 24-70 is great for family portraits on the wider end. For individual portraits, and this may sound counter-intuitive, a 70-200 is better for the bokeh and getting in tight on your subject, but that's if you're shooting full frame. If you're using it on a DX body like the D5000, I think the range is ideal. As for the lens, it is an incredibly high image quality optic that can potentially stay with you forever as you upgrade from camera to camera. Good lenses are an investment. Mediocre lenses get replaced as your skills improve, pretty much like dslr bodies. I bought this to replace a Nikon 28-105, which I've happily retired. So, in short, buy this great lens if you plan to stay with Nikon bodies. The 24-70 is great for family portraits on the wider end. For individual portraits, and this may sound counter-intuitive, a 70-200 is better for the bokeh and getting in tight on your subject, but that's if you're shooting full frame. If you're using it on a DX body like the D5000, I think the range is ideal. As for the lens, it is an incredibly high image quality optic that can potentially stay with you forever as you upgrade from camera to camera. Good lenses are an investment. Mediocre lenses get replaced as your skills improve, pretty much like dslr bodies. I bought this to replace a... » Read More The 24-70 is great for family portraits on the wider end. For individual portraits, and this may sound counter-intuitive, a 70-200 is better for the bokeh and getting in tight on your subject, but that's if you're shooting full frame. If you're using it on a DX body like the D5000, I think the range is ideal. As for the lens, it is an incredibly high image quality optic that can potentially stay with you forever as you upgrade from camera to camera. Good lenses are an investment. Mediocre lenses get replaced as your skills improve, pretty much like dslr bodies. I bought this to replace a Nikon 28-105, which I've happily retired. So, in short, buy this great lens if you plan to stay with Nikon bodies. « Show Less
1337629
Image quality between the 24-70 and 28-75 is leaps and bounds. The 24-70 is just as sharp as Canons 24-70 version. Not to mention having VC. Definitely worth it if you have the money. I owned the 28-75 and it was a great lens for what is was but the 24-70 is such a step up in my opinion. Cheers