Dxomark tests Tamron SP 24-70 VC USD and...

Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
4,793
Location
Nutley, New Jersey
I'm sure there are a few people shaking their heads right now...
furthering my point that DXO exists mostly for for measure-baters and forum fodder...I am however not in disagreement with their findings, the Nik 24-70 is an "old" lens in today's digital standards and perhaps a bench test shows its not as sharp on some mechanical test method as a "built for DXO Tamron", (see Sigma 35 1.4 comparo) as far as ranking it ahead of the Nikon, I dont think its safe to say that applies in the real world, or maybe it does for a select few.

For those of you who dont want to click this from the review should sum it up...

"Achieving an DxOMark Overall Score of 29 tested on the Nikon D800, the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Nikon ranks 80th for all Nikon lens/camera combinations. Crucially it ranks 1st for professional 24-70mm f/2.8 standard zooms."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
2,315
Location
GA
furthering my point that DXO exists mostly for for measure-baters and forum fodder...
Agreed...controlled tests are great, but they mean NOTHING when it comes to real world usage.

Plus, ALL lens makers have sample variation...not everyone will get the same lens...Nikon lenses included.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
195
Location
Arizona
and let another round of bashing DXO tests begin featuring all time favorites like

"yet another proof DXO doesn't matter"
"I guess my expensive Nikon glass is crap...*shows images*"
"They are not accounting for X so that changes everything"
"Invalid unless they include lens Y"


love it :tongue:
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
4,793
Location
Nutley, New Jersey
and let another round of bashing DXO tests begin featuring all time favorites like

"yet another proof DXO doesn't matter"
"I guess my expensive Nikon glass is crap...*shows images*"
"They are not accounting for X so that changes everything"
"Invalid unless they include lens Y"


love it :tongue:
Do you benchmark all your kitchen appliances? Sure not a perfect analogy but even camera lenses, which are subject to measurement data outside industry standard MTF charts, perform based on images not a score by DXO.
 
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
5,845
Location
phoenix
Do you all really put stock in all these chart and graph sites? Maybe as a baseline at best. Have you noticed if you look hard enough you can find one to support about any opinion.
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
2,315
Location
GA
Do you all really put stock in all these chart and graph sites? Maybe as a baseline at best. Have you noticed if you look hard enough you can find one to support about any opinion.
I feel sorry for the people that do, to be honest.

Let's say one lens gets a score of 95 and another gets 92...is the 95 really "better"? Meaning, will you see a difference between the 95 and the 92? 9 times out of 10, it's probably NO.

With that said, even if you had a 95 and an 80, i'd still put money down saying 8 out of 10 users couldn't tell the difference between the two images at first glance. Only those who "pixel peep" will see a difference, which does nothing.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
195
Location
Arizona
Do you benchmark all your kitchen appliances? Sure not a perfect analogy but even camera lenses, which are subject to measurement data outside industry standard MTF charts, perform based on images not a score by DXO.
I'm not taking the bait. :wink:
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
5,509
Location
Alaska
I'm not a fan of the DxO ratings either though they aren't totally meaningless. Does the 29 rating of the Tamron vs the 28 rating of the Nikon mean it's better? Not in and of itself. But the testing combined with dozens of user reviews touting the sharpness do probably mean it produces IQ comparable if not better than the Nikon lens. Plus the fact that it has VR and is two thirds the price has got my attention.

I currently own Nikon glass exclusively but in some focal ranges, this being one, they have definately left the door open for some loyal customers to wander out and test the waters. I've been waiting patiently for them to upgrade the 24-70. I'm loathe to spend nearly $2k on an old gen particularly now there is a viable alternative with current tech. But I'll wait till KR posts his opinion before I make a move.

FX lens prices are killing me... :frown:
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
195
Location
Arizona
FX lens prices are killing me...
which explains the big interest in these 3rd party lenses. not to say that Nikon glass was ever cheap but with Nikon and canon asking over 2K for some lenses that used to be just over 1K a few years ago, it really opens the market for somebody to step in.
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
2,315
Location
GA
which explains the big interest in these 3rd party lenses. not to say that Nikon glass was ever cheap but with Nikon and canon asking over 2K for some lenses that used to be just over 1K a few years ago, it really opens the market for somebody to step in.
Exactly. If I was a professional and only used my camera gear for professional use, i'd be getting the Nikon equivalent of everything just for the sake of having NPS cover me.

But this is a hobby and price is very much a factor. If the Tamron 24-70 produces excellent images at $1k and the Nikon is $2k, then the Nikon better produce an image twice as good. Otherwise, i'll go with the Tamron (assuming all things equal).

The other aspect here is what other variables are of value to you. AF speed, build quality, warranty, hood, use of filters, etc. If one "best" the other in areas that are of no value to you, why go for it?
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2011
Messages
3,768
Location
New Zealand
I believe these tests are a good resource. If I'm looking for a lens and see the Tamron one at $500 less than the Nikon equivalent, or whatever, I think, "Is it a dog of a lens?" I can then go to this ite and see that it is or isn't. In this casse obviously it isn't. Then I might start looking around at examples and seeking out others' opinions.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
425
Location
Portland
I've owned a few Tamrons; 28-300VC, 17-35, 2 copies of the 28-75. I've also cycled thru a few nikkors.

I haven't tried the new 24-70 Tamron but between scores and a few reviews it looks pretty promising. An aspiring amateur looking for value would be a fool not to consider it. A serious pro looking for VC/stabilization would also be a fool not to consider it as a value alternative. In the end with time and patience we'll see if the reliability and consistency produce a longterm value and following. I can't argue with the current bang for buck and its got VC. The price leaders better innovate or hope that most purchases care more about the gold label over results.

No different then cars a few years ago where you had BMW and Mercedes and the luxury Japanese brands. These days there is little to debate and they command similar respect for intrinsict, its often snob appeal that you find those that go European, IMHO :biggrin: If I was looking for a upgrade to a fast 2.8 and had the choice between a used nikkor and a new Tamron it would be a no brainer, I'd give the Tamron a spin.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2010
Messages
1,211
Location
Thomasville, NC
I would really be interested in this lens. My Tamron 17-50 in DX worked very well for me. These tests though, I guess are required, but I do not place much emphasis on them. Is a nice alternative though.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom