Question for Nikon shooters

OK I've finally made the decision pick up a D750(as soon as suppliers receive their updated stock from Nikon)and to relegate my trusty D300s to be my second body. I'm thinking of buying a fast 24-70mm at the same time but Harley's recent post comparing the Nikon with the Tamron has made that decision more difficult. In everyone's opinion over the long haul does the durability make the Nikon a better value. I own a couple of non-Nikkor lenses(Tamron and Rokinon)and there is no comparison in my opinion regarding materials and workmanship. My Nikkor's FX's are built like tanks. Harley's test results throw another factor to consider also. The difference in price is substantial (although I believe they are still offering $300 off the price if you're buying a body) which I don't have an issue with if it translates into years of reliable use. Anyway I probably have a few more weeks to make the final decision, I'm just curious what you all think. Thanks!

John

I am not trying to skew your decision, but I read quite a few Tamron reviews prior to buying the Tamron. While some seemed to get soft versions (which happened to me with a couple of Nikon lenses, like their 16-35), the reviewers seemed to generally agree the Tamron 24-70 2.8 was well built and well sealed (see the review at dpreview.com for example). Only time and use will tell how it holds up, but my initially impressions have been positive.

I recently bought a D7100 as a second body. I was mostly going to use it for weddings. I did not want to have to buy a second 24-70 Nikon lens due to the price. So I ended up getting a Sigma 17-50 2.8. It received positive reviews and seems to work well. But I can definitely see a difference in color and contrast when compared to the shots I take with the Nikon. The detail and sharpness I am getting with my Nikon 24-70 on a D800 are amazingly impressive, to me at least!

I agree that you could always get an extra good version of one, and or a soft version of the other. That will surely make a difference too.

Chris

Thank you Harley and Chris for your thoughts on this. I'll keep researching and reading everything I can find about these two lenses for a few more weeks. Probably change my mind daily until I finally take the plunge. I suppose in reality there is no bad choice between the two. Thanks again and I'll let you know how it ultimately turns out.

I picked up the Tamron 24-70 for my D600 as the Nikon was too spendy for similar ratings. The Tamron has 82mm filter threads, so new filters and there costs may be a consideration if you are already set up for the 67, 77mm threads for Nikon.. The VR on the Tamron may be useful if you do a lot of handheld shooting. So far, I have been pleased with my Tamron (I have not directly compared it to a Nikon though).

I have shot Nikon for almost 40 years and until fairly recently (7-8 years) I wouldn't think of shooting non-Nikkor lenses, but I now own a Tokina 12-24 and have been thrilled with it. I think the build quality is every bit as good as Nikon and the optical quality is almost as good as Nikon. Mind you, I'm still shooting my old D2x. If I were shooting a D810 or something optical quality would make a bigger difference. I'm currently thinking very seriously about picking up the Tamron 24-70 VR since my Nikkor 28-70 bit the dust; this decision is based on several reviews I've read as well as Harley's comments.

I own Nikon, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina lenses. 3rd party lenses are a great value if you research carefully. One thing about Tokina tho.... I have the Tokina 12-24 f4 and it's a sharp well made piece of glass but the focusing ring has such a short throw critical manual adjustments are difficult.....great AF tho.