Tamron Lenses - Quality?
lifeinfocus
Registered Users Posts: 1,461 Major grins
I am considering ordering Tamron's SP 24-70MM F/2.8DI VC lens instead of Nikons 24-70mm. Thoughts on quality of Tamron lenses? Good or bad experiences overall?
0
Comments
It's one of Tamron's most costly lenses, but still less than the Nikon equivalent, and it has the Tamron optical stabilization.
I do like the Tamron lens color rendition, with a little more warmth that seems suited for both people photography and for many landscape opportunities.
Tamron lens construction is somewhat less than Nikon/Nikkor "gold ring" lenses, but still quite good. Durability of this particular lens is a complete unknown, because of the new technologies.
Early reviews are mostly positive with regard to image quality and focus accuracy.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Thanks for a quick and complete response.
Regarding "I do like the Tamron lens color rendition". I didn't realize that a lens affected color.
Also, in general how are Tamron products regarded? Low, medium or high quality?
Phil
"You don't take a photograph, you make it." ~Ansel Adams
Phil
I have one Tamron lens, the 28-75 f/2.8, which is in many ways the predecessor of the lens you are interested in. I bought the 28-75 as an alternative to the Canon 24-70. The optical quality is fairly similar, particularly if you ignore the corners, which don't show with my crop sensor camera. The cost was about 1/3 as much. The build quality of the Tamron is inferior to the Canon L, but it has been durable and has given me no trouble over the 3 or 4 years I have had it. It lacks ultrasonic focusing, as Ziggy pointed out, and as a consequence, it also lacks full-time manual focusing. Frankly, it's the FTM focusing that I miss the most. I don't find the lack of image stabilization to be all that big a problem in at that focal length.
So, the long and short is that it lacks some features that I want, but the lens has been very good for the price, and I have often thought about buying its shorter cousin, the 17-50 non-VC.
The lens you are interested in intrigues me also. I'll wait for more reviews, but it looks very promising to me. However, swapping it for my current Tamron lens would cost a fair amount and add a lot of weight to my kit, so I may never take the plunge.
Thank you much also. I am trying to put together a reasonably priced package of lenses and still have good enough quality.
Phil
"You don't take a photograph, you make it." ~Ansel Adams
Phil
...Here's the bottom line:
The Tamron is sharp, has stabilization, and they finally got rid of that clunky old autofocus system, however that's about where the story ends. The Nikon on the other hand is a flawless piece of engineering, a bread-winning rent-paying workhorse. A brick, too.
If you're looking for something light and compact that will simply get you to f/2.8 and be sharp, with stabilization and current-generation autofocus technology, then the Tamron is a the absolute hottest lens on the market today and I would highly recommend it. As a full-time professional workhorse however, it may let you down from time to time. The sharpness is not really my concern to be honest, but and the autofocus is one of the very first in their new generation, and not as precise / reliable as Nikon's SWM autofocus. According to a couple reviews, that is. It's probably only noticeable if you REALLY push the envelope, but that just so happens to be what I do for a living. The other thing is, the Tamron is a lightweight (but still strong) lens that does sacrifice a little bit of ruggedness, which is something I personally need to maximize as a full-time professional. (ruggedness, not lightweightness)
At the end of the day, if you're paying your bills with this lens zoom range, get the Nikon unless you TRULY know what you're doing and need the stabilization or lighter weight. If you're less worried about beefy heavy-duty reliability, and you just wanna get sharp f/2.8 in that range, then get the Tamron.
Sorry if this only makes the decision tougher! I have a tendency to do that...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
That lens does everything that we want it to do at a reasonable price.
Some will say that the corners aren't sharp.
We use the lens as an indoor people shooter, so we're at f2.8, anything behind the person is going to be out of focus anyway.
When I've used it as a landscape lens, I've been at f8 - f11, and it's fine there also.
Throw in the 6 year warranty, and think the Tamron's give you a pretty good value for the money.
(I don't know how good their warranty service is cause I've never had to use it)
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
Phil
"You don't take a photograph, you make it." ~Ansel Adams
Phil
Old SP 90mm f2.5 macro MF lens with home made EOS converter - solid build and sharp.
Same 17 - 50 /2.8 as davev - similar comments as his - did all that was asked of it ... 'did' as it's had a similar fate ... on long term loan to daughter + bf ... so probably won't be seeing that again for a while.
!80mm / 3.5 macro ... still in use and does the job asked of it.
All still working fine.
pp
Flickr
Yuuuup. The Tamron 17-50 is an incredible lens for crop cameras.
Yeah, the Tamron 17-50 is great, and the 24-70 VC is the 17-50's bigger, AWESOME brother. Anyone who finds the 17-50 to be adequate, or for that matter the Tamron 28-75 2.8, ...they will find the Tamron 24-70 VC to be absolutely incredible.
Like I said though, They're not the best option for heavy-duty professional use. There is a clear difference between the Tamrons and the Nikons, (mid-range 2.8 zooms) if you need that built-like-a-tank construction and reliability...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum