photography: how good / sharp do your lenses need to be?
Olena, who I photographed during a recent personal photography workshop in New York.
camera settings: 1/320 @ f/3.5 @ 800 ISO (available light)
I was trying out the new Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 VC (B&H) for the images I shot during this workshop. (It comes in a Canon version too.) It appears to be a fantastic lens. Build quality is good. The feel of it is good. The zoom ring has a nice throw. And it features stabilization! Nice touch.
However, shooting other images at wide open aperture, I wasn’t sure I was happy with the edge performance. Zooming in on the image on the back of the Nikon D4, I felt my Nikon was sharper.
So I decided to do a few comparison test shots between the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 (B&H) and the Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 VC (B&H) that I had for review purposes, as well as my trusted Nikon 24-70mm f2.8G (B&H)
The quick comparison tests that I shot were of … yes, a wall of a building. And I know that this goes against the grain with some photographers who get all esoteric about the “look” of the images they get from certain lenses, and how sharpness isn’t everything, and how they don’t photograph brick walls, blah blah blah … but this *is* a better way of assesing a lens’ performance, than just gushing about it on a forum. It has to be tested in some way. And while I don’t have brick walls for clients, I do shoot for large spreads in wedding albums, and the lens quality most definitely DOES show up very quickly when the image is printed at near 100% of the camera’s base resolution. What I am trying to say here is, the lens sharpness most definitely does count. A lot!
Of course, there are other values against which a lens’ performance should be held, such as: barrel distortion or pincushion distortion, and also the lens’ bokeh. (And to re-iterate this again, bokeh is not the same as shallow depth-of-field! For me, as much as I love smooth bokeh, it is of a lesser concern. Two lenses that I often uses, the Canon 24-105mm f/4L and the Nikon 24-120mm f/4G VR (B&H), have pretty harsh bokeh if compared to some other lenses. Both the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 and the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8G (B&H) have much smoother bokeh. But, as I mentioned, the bokeh is a secondary aspect for me over sharpness and convenience. The lens has to be convenient and easy to use!
This brings us to the other part of this topic, if I am so specific about image sharpness, why not use Zeiss lenses? Well, the times that I have used Zeiss lenses, I’ve been very impressed. Specifically the Sony 85mm f/1.4 Carl Zeiss Planar T* (B&H), that I had for review purposes.
– bokeh – a few notes
– photo session using various 85mm lenses
The way the Zeiss lenses feels when you turn the focus ring? woaaah, it feels good. But that is exactly the downfall for me … I had to manually focus them. Not convenient. For the way I shoot, I need speed. The lens (and camera) has to respond fast! And focus accurately! And be sharp.
So yes, sharpness of a lens is very important to me … along with flexibility of the lens … which is why I have a strong preference for zooms. Even though I have a good range of prime lenses, two main lenses that I use to photograph weddings, are the 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8
related article:
– recommended lenses for wedding photography
Back to the informal lens test between:
– Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 DI VC (B&H); also available in a Canon mount (B&H)
– Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 (Nikon mount) (B&H); also available in a Canon mount (B&H)
– Nikon 24-70mm f2.8G ED AF-S (B&H).
Download the hi-res files here for the three lenses, as shot at f/2.8 at both the 24mm and 70mm zoom settings. Keep in mind that these are informal test shots to confirm for myself what I had suspected while taking photos of Olena – that my Nikon lens was superior.
These images were shot with the Nikon D800 (B&H), so the images are huge. So it could well be argued that when reduced in size for smaller prints, the difference between these lenses would be less noticeable. That certainly is a valid way of looking at it, especially if your budget is limited.
The Sigma has a kind of hazy look which I didn’t like at all, and it appeared soft at the widest aperture. Even though the lens is the most affordable at $900, it isn’t a lens I would use. It just doesn’t stack up against the other two lenses.
The Tamron is appealing because it offers stabilization, but the image quality fell down at 70mm, especially towards the edges. At 50mm, the Nikon lens again was better than the Tamron. At 35mm, the lenses appear about equal to my eye. At 24mm, the Tamron had performance that stood up to the Nikon though, and even better than the Nikon in the extreme corners. At $1,300 it is more affordable than the Nikon which costs $1,900
For me though, the Tamron fell down in its performance at the longer focal lengths. I need crisp especially towards 70mm, where it is important for portraits.
All this comes down to a salient point – the Nikon lens is generally superior. That’s it. It is sharp throughout the range, and I can rely on it.
And I feel that that is how good our lenses need to be – that we can rely on them for crisp images, whether for our own casual photography, or for professional work.
Neil, besides throwing a lot of very useful information in a very simplistic and plain way to us, I have to say that you may seem to have a sense to find the right topics that we actually want to read about, so, keep up the good work. This is a comparisson that just 3 days ago I was looking for in Internet and could not find it. And it’s not the first time that happens to me while I’ve been reading your blog.
I have a little bit more than a year in the Business of Wedding Photography and I’m planning to invest in full frame gear, and the process involves getting the lenses first, so I could use them on my DX while I get the body. So, I’ve been reading about this Tamron and Sigma Lenses, and the older Nikkor 28-70mm. This Nikkor sells lightly used or like new for about $1,200, and as I am on a budget, I think it could work while the business grows up. So, in your experience, does those 4mm really count? Are the image quality of the lenses comparable, so that the decision factors would narrow down to size, weight and price?
Please, let us know your thoughts about it, and again, thanks.
JC
Wow. That Sigma looked terrible. The Tamron didn’t look too bad though. I expected worse but it’s certainly better than the Sigma. I use the edge of my frame quite a bit. Maybe not a ton but enough to where edge sharpness does matter to me.
@JCruz. FWIW. I’ve had both the 28-70 nikkor and the 24-70. If my 28-70 hadn’t been beat to hell I’d have been just fine with the older lens. It started having some focusing issues so I decided to upgrade. But before that I thought it was an outstanding piece of glass. Actually I still do and would shoot with it any day. I got my 24-70 refurbished for a few bills less than retail from Adorama and it’s been great. The extra 4mm just meant I could stand a foot or 2 closer. I wouldn’t say the same though for the 80-200 vs the 70-200. That matters. To me anyway.
Neil, thanks for this post. I was thinking about the Tamron because of the VC (for both photo as well as video) but I guess I’ll stick to the 24-70 for now.
@JCruz – +1 on the 28-70. I had both though I sold the 28-70 because I got a deal on the 24-70. I did a brick wall comparison between the 28-70 and 24-70 here: http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2012/04/nikon-28-70-28d-vs-nikon-24-70-28g.html
Note that I was only testing with a Nikon D3 (12mp) so a higher resolution camera might reveal a more significant difference between the two.
Best regards,
Mic
I loved my Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 … it was sharp! But I never did test it against the 24-70mm f/2.8 because the 24-70 was an automatic upgrade for me with the slightly wider range.
I’d go with Mic Ty’s assessment, but also think the D800, because of its super-mega-pixels might show up some deficiencies.
But I do think the 28-70 is a good alternative to the 24-70
C’mon Neil, bugger the lenses, how does one get a copy of Olena? 8-)
Apart from image quality, how about the focus reliability for Tamron ? The older versions (28-75) had problems focusing in low light – how is this one ?
For those of us without a brick wall handy, a sheet of newspaper (do they still print them?) taped to a wall stands in nicely. This will help reveal chromatic aberrations along with the spherical and sharpness issues.
Neil, thanks for this info.
I experienced problems not related to image quality with my Tamron lenses. The 90mm Tamron gives an intermittend battery low indicator on the D300, and the Tamron 17-50mm had a defective aperture calibration. The image quality of the Tamron lenses are good, but I believe it’s a safer bet to buy Nikon leses.
3rd party lenses are reverse engineerd and may not be compatible with new Nikon bodies. It’s something you need to consider when buying lenses.
I dont’t like a picture with harsh bokeh. For me, a harsh bokeh is a deal breaker.
https://neilvn.com/tangents/bokeh-vs-shallow-depth-of-field/
I like lenses which produce a smooth bokeh, and if I have a choice- I will only buy lenses with a smooth buttery bokeh.
… And the lens must be sharp at its widest aperture.
Thanks for the post – good info. I’ve stayed away from 3rd party lenses…well, except for my Zeiss. Love that lens.
oh dear, this does not look good. Seems like this Tamron has an issue with an element popping loose inside the lens!
Is it made of metal?
After 1 year of usage, my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 feels loose, I think it will start to fall apart after 1 more year. The pictures dont seem to be as sharp as they were (or is it because I also use the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 these days). I have 20 year old Nikon 80-200 f/2.8, and it feels like it will hold up for another 20 years.
My new principle: if a lens cost more than $600, it must be made of metal.
The Nikon 24-70 2.8 has become my favorite lens over the past few years, for the image quality and the versatility. Yes, it’s a heavy lens. But the sharpness and convenience of its range (and not having to swap primes, which helps in keeping the D3 sensor clean) “outweigh” the weight issue. On another note, I’m curious about the beautiful image of Olena. The location appears to be a place where the light might be a little more dense, but the model’s eyes and skin really pop for an available light portrait. May I ask about the light and how you processed this image? Thanks. Keep up the great work!
As much as I like the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8, the lack of image stabilzation lead to many blurry images on the long end, so the release of the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR filled that void perfectly, besides it offers the ideal range for landscape photography (which I do most). I only use original Nikon lenses and thank you for re-iterating the fact that if you want quality, you are supposed to stick with Nikon glass.
The Canon 24-105mm, with its image stabilization, is a great all-round lens that is just at home when shooting video. Having made the move some time ago from 3rd party lenses, I can now only rate the benefits of using glass put together and created by the best…Canon and Nikon.
I see many reviews and samples of the Sigma and Tamron lenses. Any thoughts on the Tokina pro series of lenses.
Craig, I didn’t have a Tokina lens on hand for review. But again, I would be hugely surprised if it performed better than the Nikon.
My Tamron was a failure, they clearly lack quality control. The elements were decentered at a degree were two corners of the lens were smudging the image. Not ideal for wedding photography as the people at the end of the row would look like out of focus. Have a look:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/22285064@N03/sets/72157630580733610/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/22285064@N03/sets/72157630553470686/
Barrel distortion is on a high level too and another problem with this lens is the impossible to evade flare.
Everything else is Ok. If it was sold at a price of ~600$ it might have been a good choice for amateurs, but at the current price it is sold at and with all the defects, I strongly recommend the Canon 24-105 f/4 over this lens.
I have the Sigma 24-70. I could not justify paying double the price of the Nikon 24-70 (I’m on a D90, and no where near professional). At the time I got the Sigma, the Tamron wasn’t around yet. At f2.8, the Sigma is indeed soft. From f4, the lens is just fine. I tend to use f2.8 in low light situations only, where the high ISO already hacks into the image quality, so you don’t really notice the softness then. If I should ever make money on photography, I would upgrade to the Nikon lens eventually. Until then, the Sigma does well 99% of the time.
… except, you do actually see the image softness. It’s quite obvious in the samples I posted.
That’s the thing we have to balance so often though – image quality vs price.
Hi Neil,
Thanks for the review, I’m using the 24-105 with the 24,35 and 50 L primes but very interested in the new canon 24-70 mk 2 based on user reviews so far.
Have you had a chance to look at this new lens yet?
Steve
l would like to see a Tangent review of an older far less expensive lens, the Canon 28-70mm f 3.5-4.5. l got mine on ebay for about £25. The photozone review is impressive but its on an crop camera, FF would be good. Many have said they use the 24-105 f4L, f3.5-4.5 is pretty close. For most of my work l shoot at f8/f11 and find the lens very sharp, bokeh is not relevant as l am taking studio portraits with background screens so a fuller test would be informative.
Hi Neil,
thank you for your comparison. I just wanted to note that the Carl Zeiss lens that you mentioned her is for the Sony Mount (Zeiss ZA). This lens features autofocus while the ZE and ZF for Canon and Nikon do not have autofocus. But these are different lenses.
Best regards
Sofian
I use a D800 with a Nikon 24-70mm f2.8. I have other cameras and lenses but its the D800 and Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 that I use the most. I think the quality of that combination is superb. And I heared that Zeiss lenses are made by Cosina of Japan. Cosina used to make cheap manual cameras 30 odd years ago. I wouldn’t want a lens made by Cosina.
While I was with Canon, I had a really great experience with the Tamron 24-70mm F2.8 VC lens. I found it to be very usable at any aperture. My fav. aperture was 3.2 for this lens on a 5dmKiii. The Canon version is just too expensive.
The VC feature alone is worth its weight in gold.
70mm F2.8 @ 1/15 at ISO 6400 looks way better than 70mm F2.8 @ 1/60 @ISO 25,000.
I sold my 5Dmkii and 5DmkIIIs and all canon gear in late 2013.
When I moved to Nikon, I bought Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 and 70-200mm F2.8 VRII for my two D600 bodies. I am primarily a zoom person- I must have the freedom of the zooms, primes come out only when I have a real reason to use primes.
I should have bought the tamron pair of 24-70mm and 70-200mm and invested the surplus money on Sigma 35ART and 85mm EX. I don’t find that the new Tamrons are inferior to Nikon or Canon in optics or VR department at all. In fact, the VC on new pro grade Tamrons are probably a bit more efficient than Nikon’s VRII in my experience.
Yes, tamrons depreciate, but Nikons depreciate too. Infact, the Nikons actually depreciate a bit more as they are overpriced to begin with.
A $1200 Tamron VC can now be bought used on ebay for about $800. Now they cost $999 brand new here in Australia -yes local stock. A used one is still like $750 to $800. If you are buying you are better off buying new one. Even if you are selling it- you are not losing any money at all!
A $2100+ Nikon 24-70 can be bought used on ebay for around $1300!
Even if I wanted to switch to Tamron now, I will be taking huge losses because my Nikon zooms have depreciated so much in value. :(
On top of that the 24-70 has developed stiff zoom ring in less than 1 year of wedding photography use ( I have only shot about 30 weddings with it so far ) hence I wont even get $1300 for it if i had to ebay it.
Unless you are a war photographer, most people are better off with the new tamron VCs. They are just as good if not better in real world in my humble opinion.