Overview
In this review, I will talk about my month-long experience with the Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 DI VC USD lens, provide detailed information on its characteristics along with image samples, as well as some optical measurements and comparisons to the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G lens.
1) Lens Overview
The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 is a versatile professional lens designed for many different kinds of photography needs – from wide-angle landscapes and panoramas, to portraits and events. Built with low-light photography in mind, the lens features a constant aperture of f/2.8, fast autofocus and built-in image stabilization (which Tamron markets as “VC” or “Vibration Compensation”). The latter is what no other manufacturers today, including Nikon and Canon, can pride themselves with – the Tamron 24-70mm is world’s first and currently only “standard zoom” lens with image stabilization (as of August 2012). Featuring 17 lens elements in 12 groups, 3 of which are aspherical and 3 with low-dispersion qualities, the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 has a more complex design than the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G, which has 15 lens elements in 11 groups. With a barrel diameter of 3.5 inches and weighing a total of 825 grams, it is by no means a small or lightweight lens. It incorporates Tamron’s Ultrasonic Silent Drive (USD) motor, which provides both fast and ultra-quiet autofocus.
With a focal length of 24-70mm (which is not its actual focal length, as pointed out in the “Lens Handling” section below), which is equivalent to roughly 36-105mm, it is designed to be used more on full-frame (FX) than cropped-sensor (DX) cameras. 36mm just might feel a little “too long” on the wide end on cropped-sensor cameras for general photography needs. Unlike most professional lenses that can take 77mm filters, the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 has a larger 82mm filter diameter, which means that it would require purchasing additional larger filters if you are planning to use filters on it. Due to the massive size of the front element, it would be impossible to use a 77mm filter with adapter rings.
In terms of optical performance, as you will see below in the Sharpness section, the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 delivers very good results. It starts out strong wide open at 24mm and weakens towards 70mm. On the flip side, the lens suffers from pronounced vignetting, has an onion-shaped bokeh and has field curvature issues at longer focal lengths.
2) Lens Specifications
Main Features:
- Fast, wide-angle to medium telephoto zoom lens with a constant aperture of f/2.8.
- Three glass-molded aspherical lenses and one hybrid aspherical lens to control chromatic aberrations while enhancing sharpness and contrast.
- Three low-dispersion (LD) lens elements for increased sharpness.
- Two extra-refractive index (XR) lens elements for reduced aberrations and better imaging performance.
- Tamron’s Ultrasonic Silent Drive (USD) provides near-silent high-speed auto focus with superb accuracy.
- AF/MF focus mode switch allows changing between manual and auto focus operation.
- Rugged construction with professional-grade dust and moisture resistance.
Technical Specifications:
- Mount Type: Nikon F-Bayonet (also available for Canon and Sony mounts)
- Focal Length Range: 24-70mm
- Maximum Aperture: 2.8
- Minimum Aperture: 22
- Angle of View (DX-format): 60°20’ －22°33’
- Angle of View (FX-format): 84°04’ －34°21’
- Lens (Elements): 17
- Lens (Groups): 12
- Compatible Format(s): FX, DX, FX in DX Crop Mode, 35mm Film
- Diaphragm Blades: 9
- Distance Information: Yes
- LD Glass (Elements): 3
- Aspherical (Elements): 3
- Hybrid Aspherical (Elements: 1
- Autofocus: Yes
- USD (Ultrasonic Silent Drive): Yes
- Minimum Focus Distance: 0.38m
- Focus Mode: AF/MF
- Filter Size: 82mm
- Accepts Filter Type: Screw-on
- Length: 108.5mm (4.3 in)
- Full Length: 116.9mm (4.6 in)
- Diameter: φ88.2mm (3.5 in)
- Weight (Approx.): 29.1 oz. (825g)
- Lens Hood: Flower-shaped HA007 lens hood
3) Lens handling
Just like the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G, the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 feels very solid in hands. Although its barrel is made of plastic (versus the all-metal construction of the Nikon 24-70mm) it does not have a cheap or “plasticky” feel to it at all. Keep in mind that plastic does not expand and contract like metal does when temperatures change quickly, which can actually prolong the life and performance of a lens. All new Nikon AF-S primes, even the most expensive ones like the Nikon 24mm f/1.4G have plastic barrels and they handle exceptionally well. On top of that, plastic means lighter and as I have already pointed out earlier, the Tamron 24-70mm is lighter than the Nikon 24-70mm, despite the fact that it has a bigger barrel and a more complex optical design.
Similar to other 24-70mm lenses, the length of the lens extends when the focal length is changed. At the wide end @ 24mm, the lens is at its shortest length. As you zoom in, the length of the lens increases, reaching its longest length at 70mm. The Nikon 24-70mm behaves completely differently – its shortest length is at 50mm, while zooming out to 24mm extends the lens quite a bit. Take a look at both lenses at 70mm:
And here, you can see the Tamron 24-70mm at 70mm, while the Nikon 24-70mm is at 24mm – both lenses fully extended:
And lastly, here are both lenses at their shortest length, with Tamron 24-70mm at 24mm and Nikon 24-70mm at 50mm:
The zoom ring is pretty smooth out of the box with some resistance. Overtime, this resistance might weaken a bit, but I have not had the lens long enough to tell for sure. My Nikon 24-70mm was fairly good in the beginning and now the zoom ring is too smooth and somewhat loose – a result of heavy field use and abuse (I will be sending it to Nikon for tuning soon). The zoom and focus rings are reversed like on some Nikon lenses like Nikkor 24-120mm f/4 VR and the zoom ring is not as wide, which I am fine with.
While inspecting the lens, I found out that zooming in to 70mm causes the rear element to go deep inside the lens. While some movement of the rear element is quite normal on zoom and prime lenses, I found this one to be a little extreme. At 70mm, a lot of the lens guts are exposed, as seen in the below image:
There is nothing that protects the rear. In comparison, the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G has a single non-moving rear element that protects the lens. Keep this in mind when changing lenses, especially in dusty and windy environments. If you do decide to change lenses, make sure to zoom out to 24mm before you dismount it. On the positive side, similar to all recently-announced Nikon AF-S lenses, the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 also features a rubber gasket on the lens mount that minimizes the amount of dust that could potentially end up inside the lens or the camera.
Another interesting observation, was the focal length of the lens – the Tamron 24-70mm is not a true 24-70mm lens. When compared to the Nikon 24-70mm, it was a little wider throughout the zoom range. It was hard to quantify this difference, but I would say it was more like a 22-60mm lens instead (depending on focus distance). Personally, I would consider this as an advantage, because sometimes I wish the 24-70mm was a little wider. But I guess it all depends on what focal lengths you use the most. For landscape photography, I tend to stay between 24mm and 50mm for most of my landscape shots, so cutting it a little short on the long end does not bother me.
The Vibration Compensation (VC) switch, along with the AF/MF switch are both located on the side of the lens, similar to Nikkor lenses (the lens comes with VC turned off). There is another switch on the lens for locking the zoom at 24mm, probably used for transportation purposes and to prevent the lens from creeping in the future. All switches are easy to move and use. Tamron uses lens caps similar to the ones that Nikon uses, which is good news. I personally dislike Canon’s lens caps, because they are impossible to remove with a lens hood on.
The large barrel size and a massive front element result in an over-sized, non-standard (for pros) filter size of 82mm. I personally consider this as a cost disadvantage to the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8, because standard 77mm filters cannot be used with step ring adapters. So when deciding whether to purchase this lens, add the cost of circular filters that you might need to purchase as well. If you use a filter holder system, make sure that your filter holder can accommodate the lens, perhaps with other adapters. I use Hi-Tech and Lee Filter Holder systems and both have 82mm adapters, so it is just a matter of purchasing the right adapter. Thanks to the rear focus design, the front element of the lens does not extend or rotate during focusing, so you don’t have to worry about constantly readjusting filters like on some older lenses.
Although the lens is heavy, it balances quite well on heavier pro bodies like Nikon D800/D4. The same is not true on entry-level cameras like Nikon D3200 – it certainly feels off-balance towards the front of the lens and awkward, due to its size and weight. While it works great on any DX camera, I would not recommend to use it on one, unless you like working in the 36-105mm range. Cheaper and lighter alternatives like Nikon 16-85mm or Nikon 16-35mm VR would be more useful in terms of focal length and size.
The HA007 bayonet lens hood is wider, but much shorter than the HB-40 that goes on the Nikon 24-70mm, as seen in the below picture:
It snaps on nicely, stays in place and does not wobble. I highly recommend to keep it on the lens at all times, because it does help in dealing with lens flare and it can come in handy for protecting the front element. While storing or transporting the lens, you can conveniently reverse the hood and it won’t take up any additional space.
4) Focus acquisition speed and accuracy
The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 features the Ultrasonic Silent Drive (USD) autofocus motor that is used in high-end Tamron lenses. It is very fast, accurate and produces very low noise during AF operation. In comparison, the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G is both faster and quieter, but not by a big margin. In fact, to date I have not seen any lens for the Nikon mount that focuses faster than the Nikon “trinity” (14-24mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm). But this speed advantage is not that big of a deal, since the speed of the Tamron 24-70mm is more than adequate for any kind of photography. The key in autofocus performance is precision and low-light performance and the Tamron 24-70mm surely does not disappoint in both. Lola and I shot a few weddings with this lens and it performed quite well even in very dim environments.
5) Vibration Compensation / Image Stabilization
The key advantage of the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 over all other 24-70mm lenses on the market today is its image stabilization feature, which Tamron calls “Vibration Compensation”. Tamron claims that the VC technology provides up to 4 stops of stabilization, similar to Nikon’s claim on its VR II technology. I personally found the 4 stop claim to be an overstatement for both VC and VR II, especially on high resolution cameras like Nikon D800 and D7000. Realistically, I would say that both VC and VR II provide up to about 2.5-3 stops of advantage, with the latter being a little more consistent.
Overall though, image stabilization on a 24-70mm zoom range is a huge bonus. Many photographers blindly think that they do not need stabilization on short focal length zoom lenses. First of all, this is a “standard” zoom lens and second, image stabilization is extremely useful even on super wide-angle lenses. Try the Nikon 16-35mm VR or any of the new Canon wide-angle primes with IS and you will see what you have been missing all along…
6) Lens sharpness and contrast
Some of the weaknesses of the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G, are its rather soft corner performance at large apertures and optical issues such as distortion and vignetting at the shortest zoom range of 24mm. One needs to be aware of these limitations and I personally often avoid using the Nikon 24-70mm at 24mm and large apertures. The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8, on the other hand, has a completely different optical design that is actually optimized for wide open performance at 24mm. In fact, the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 turned out to be a reverse version of the Nikon 24-70mm: as you will see in the next page of this review, it is sharpest at 24mm and its performance deteriorates towards 70mm, with the worst performance at the longest zoom range.
In addition, the lens exhibits odd behavior when stopping down to f/4 from f/2.8 on certain samples. The image gets brighter and its diaphragm blades do not seem to change much between these apertures. At first, I thought the error was on my end, but as I tested the lens in different environments, I was able to reconfirm this behavior. You can see a clear example of this problem in the next “Bokeh” section below. So f/4 is not really f/4 on this lens. I thought it was just my lens sample that was showing this particular problem, but it turned out that I was not the only one – another local photographer who owns the same lens also had the same problem. It is hard to say how many samples out there have this particular problem, so I would encourage you to check your sample quickly and exchange it for a good one within the return window.
As for contrast and colors, I found them to be similar to the Nikon 24-70mm, which is superb. With such a complex design and so many aspherical and low dispersion elements, it had better be!
7) Field curvature
The Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 suffers from pronounced field curvature issues, as I have already pointed out in my Nikon 24-70mm review. The donut-shaped field curvature it exhibits is rather annoying at large apertures, with decreased mid-frame performance on FX, which is pretty close to where the corner frame on DX is. In comparison, the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 does not have major field curvature issues at 24mm, but does have the same donut-shaped curvature at 50mm and longer. This can be clearly seen from the Imatest charts provided in the second and third pages of this review, where you can spot a drop of mid-field performance at focal lengths above 24mm.
8) Bokeh
When it comes to bokeh performance, the Tamron 24-70mm shows some interesting characteristics. Take a look at the below comparison between the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 and the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G:
As I have pointed out in the above section (Lens sharpness and contrast), you can clearly see what happens to the bokeh shape and size when the lens is stopped down from f/2.8 to f/4.0. There is practically no difference between the two apertures – only brightness changes (had to compensate by -1 stop in Lightroom to make the above images comparable). Bokeh shape and size stay exactly the same. Now take a look at the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G on the bottom and note how different it looks between apertures.
Now a few observations of bokeh performance:
- Both lenses show pronounced outlines of out of focus highlights
- Similar to some Sigma lenses (see the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Review), the Tamron 24-70mm shows a thicker, non-uniform outline and an “onion-shaped” bokeh – a result of the different aspherical lens elements used in the lens
- The bokeh of Nikon 24-70mm looks smoother and less distracting in general
And now let’s take a look at how both lenses do with bokeh in front of the focused area:
No need to describe the situation here – you can clearly see which one is better.
Overall, neither lens shows exceptional bokeh performance, but the Nikon 24-70mm is clearly better than the Tamron 24-70mm. The onion-shaped bokeh can be quite distracting on the Tamron 24-70mm and you can see the effect in both bokeh comparisons. If you are looking for a good portrait lens with beautiful bokeh, try the Nikon 85mm f/1.4G instead.
9) Vignetting
Vignetting on the Tamron 24-70mm is most pronounced wide open at 24mm. As the focal length increases and the lens is stopped down, the amount of vignetting is reduced substantially, as can be seen below:
And here is a a graph that shows the spread of light falloff across the image frame at 24mm, f/2.8 (worst vignetting levels):
10) Ghosting and Flare
The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 handles ghosting and flares quite well, as can be seen below (taken without the hood and without any filters):
And here is the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G in comparison:
From the above two image samples, the Tamron looks better to me overall. While the Tamron shows a little more flare, the Nikon 24-70mm shows a lot more ghosting throughout the frame. That’s why the Nikon 24-70mm has a huge lens hood – it just does not do well against very bright light sources. You could take off the lens hood on the Tamron 24-70mm and you would be fine, whereas I would not recommend to do the same on the Nikon 24-70mm.
11) Distortion
The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 starts out with moderate barrel distortion at the shortest focal length of 24mm that Imatest measured at -3.74%. It then immediately switches to pincushion distortion at 35mm and stays that way until 70mm, as illustrated below:
I personally do not worry about distortion problems on my lenses, because they are very easy to fix in Photoshop and Lightroom. The latest version of Lightroom 4 already has built-in support for the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8, so the issues can be fixed with a single click using the Lens Correction module.
12) Chromatic Aberrations
Chromatic aberrations are practically non-existent in the center frame at all focal lengths and apertures. In the extreme corners, however, some CA is present depending on the focal length and aperture. Interestingly, the lowest amount of CA is at largest apertures (except for 24mm), as shown below:
Similar to distortion, chromatic aberrations are also easy to deal with in post-production, so I would not be overly concerned about the above numbers.
Let’s now move on to the good stuff – sharpness tests and comparisons. Select the next page below.
Sharpness Test
13) Sharpness Test
Take a look at the following sharpness charts that illustrate the optical performance of the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 at different focal lengths from 24mm to 70mm:
As noted earlier, the Tamron 24-70mm shows strong performance at the shortest end of the zoom range. It has excellent center and mid-frame performance at all apertures, with f/5.6 yielding the best performance. Its corner performance is also quite good, with best resolution figures at around the f/8 mark.
As the focal length increases, the overall sharpness of the lens starts to suffer a little. The center and mid-frame stay pretty strong at f/5.6 and f/8.0, but the corners do take a slight hit.
At 50mm, the corner resolution improves slightly, but the center yields slightly worse figures than shorter focal lengths.
And at 70mm, the lens is at its worst at all large apertures, with f/11 yielding the best numbers. There is a some straight field curvature that affects the extreme corners at all focal lengths, but it is not as bad as in some lenses.
Lens Comparisons
14) Compared to Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G
The Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G has been my favorite landscape lens for a while now, as noted in my Nikon 24-70mm Review. I love its tough build and super fast AF, both of which have been quite useful when shooting professionally. However, its lack of image stabilization and a number of optical issues have made it tough to keep shooting with it, especially when lenses like Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR are available today. When Tamron announced this 24-70mm, I really wanted to see how it would compare optically to my Nikon 24-70mm. Let’s take a look.
15) Tamron 24-70mm vs Nikon 24-70mm @ 24mm
The Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G is an extremely sharp lens in the center of the frame, even at the largest apertures. However, its donut-shaped aperture (quite noticeable on a flat surface) makes it suffer in the mid-frame, as shown in the below illustration. It also has rather poor corner performance even when stopped down at 24mm, which is its weakest focal length:
16) Tamron 24-70mm vs Nikon 24-70mm @ 35mm
At 35mm, the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G improves dramatically. While it starts out weaker in the mid-frame and corners, stopping down to f/5.6 produces sharp images across the frame, with f/8.0 having the best overall performance:
17) Tamron 24-70mm vs Nikon 24-70mm @ 50mm
As we zoom in more to 50mm, the Nikon 24-70mm now performs better at all apertures:
18) Tamron 24-70mm vs Nikon 24-70mm @ 70mm
Finally at 70mm, the Nikon 24-70mm still outperforms the Tamron 24-70mm at the largest apertures, with a slightly weaker performance beyond f/8:
19) Tamron 24-70mm vs Nikon 24-70mm Summary
The Tamron 24-70mm shows impressive performance at the shortest focal length of 24mm. It has excellent sharpness across the frame and it clearly beats the Nikon 24-70mm at all apertures. However, as the Nikon 24-70mm is zoomed in beyond 24mm, it produces better resolution across the frame. While Tamron starts out strong at the shortest focal length and weakens towards the telephoto range, the Nikon shows a completely reverse picture. Except for 24mm, the Nikon is clearly better, especially when stopped down to f/5.6-f/8. It also produces smoother bokeh and has a little less vignetting problems to deal with. At the same time, the Nikon 24-70mm suffers from heavier distortion issues (stronger barrel distortion at 24mm and pincushion distortion at all other focal lengths), has a little more chromatic aberration issues in the extreme corners and lacks image stabilization. So when choosing between the two lenses, I would recommend to weigh in what is more important for you, keeping the cost difference in mind.
20) Compared to Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G VR
Priced at $669, the new Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G VR might seem like a good alternative to the Tamron 24-70mm. It is also a full-frame lens with integrated image stabilization (VR II) technology and it gives slightly more zoom range to work with on the long end. Let’s take a look at how it compares in terms of sharpness on the high-resolution Nikon D800.
21) Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 vs Nikon 24-85mm VR @ 24mm
As you can see, the Nikon 24-85mm VR does not stand a chance against the Tamron 24-70mm at 24mm – it has much weaker center, mid-frame and corner resolution:
22) Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 vs Nikon 24-85mm VR @ 35mm
At 35mm, the Nikon 24-85mm has slightly better center sharpness, but it lags behind in mid-frame and corner performance, as shown below:
23) Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 vs Nikon 24-85mm VR @ 50mm
We see a similar situation at 50mm – the Nikon 24-85mm is still worse in mid-frames and corners:
24) Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 vs Nikon 24-85mm VR @ 70mm
And at 70mm, the Nikon 24-85mm VR yields better center sharpness, although the mid-frame and the corners are somewhat comparable. The Tamron takes over at f/11, with better resolution throughout the frame:
25) Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 vs Nikon 24-85mm VR Summary
Except for the telephoto range of 70mm, the Nikon 24-85mm VR clearly falls behind the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 in terms of resolution. This is especially noticeable in the mid-frame and corners, where the Nikon 24-85mm VR just does not do well, period. In addition, the Nikon 24-85mm has a bunch of other optical issues – it has more vignetting, distortion and chromatic aberration problems, especially at shorter focal lengths. You certainly get what you pay for…
Summary and Image Samples
26) Summary
Being the first image-stabilized Full Frame standard zoom lens in the world, the Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 DI VC USD has been receiving quite a bit of attention from the photography community ever since it was announced in April of 2012. Lack of image stabilization has been one of the major drawbacks of 24-70mm lenses for Nikon and Canon mounts for a while now and many photographers and especially videographers, have been desperately waiting for such a lens. Given the fact that Canon released a Mark II version of the Canon 24-70mm earlier this year without image stabilization, we might not see stabilized 24-70mm lenses from the big brands for a while now.
While having image stabilization is certainly a huge bonus, it is only one of the criterion for choosing lenses. The lens also has to perform well optically and that’s where the Tamron 24-70mm has its strengths and weaknesses. As seen in the “Sharpness Test” and “Lens Comparisons” pages, the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 shows excellent performance at 24mm, surpassing the Nikon 24-70mm in mid-frame and corner performance (mostly due to the donut-shaped field curvature the Nikon 24-70mm exhibits). In addition, the lens shows less ghosting, distortion and chromatic aberration issues than the Nikon 24-70mm at pretty much all focal lengths. However, the sharpness of the Tamron 24-70mm quickly deteriorates as the lens is zoomed in, so the Nikon 24-70mm pretty much takes over at all focal lengths starting from 35mm. Still, the Tamron yields good sharpness across the frame, especially when compared to lower cost lenses like the Nikon 24-85mm VR.
A key disadvantage of the Tamron 24-70mm is its ugly onion-shaped bokeh, an example of which you can see on the first page of the review. The Tamron 24-70mm is great for low-light situations with quick AF and image stabilization, but you have to be able to live with the way it renders the background highlights. Also, sample variation can be an issue. While my sample was pretty strong optically, it had an issue when changing aperture from f/2.8 to f/4, as evidenced from the same bokeh comparison. While third party lens manufacturers have gotten much better with their QA processes during the last few years, I still find them to have much more sample variation than Nikon and Canon. I have seen a number of cases, where identical lenses would perform completely differently in the same lab conditions.
Overall though, considering all advantages and disadvantages of the Tamron 24-70mm and the fact that it is $600 cheaper than the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G, I consider it a great buy. Tamron did a good job in designing this lens and as I have pointed out a number of times, image stabilization is certainly a big plus when comparing it to the much more expensive Nikon and Canon (Mark II) counterparts.
27) Where to buy and availability
You can order your copy of the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 lens for $1,299 (as of 09/01/2012) at B&H.
28) More image samples
All Images Copyright © The Mansurovs, All Rights Reserved. Copying or reproduction is not permitted without written permission from the author.
About Nasim Mansurov
Nasim,
Another great article as always. I am wondering your opinion if either these lenses would be too big for the nikon d600? Do you think the d600 is really going to be a basic entry level camera? I already see the revised specs on the rumor sites indicating 1/4000 shutter speed. Im getting worried it won’t be much of an upgrade from my d5100 and I that I should just get a d800. I personally feel it would be silly for a tiny full frame camera that looks silly with full frame glass sticking off the front. Too bad I already sold all my DX glass. I only have my 50 1.8g and 85 1.4g left but I would like to add in a nice zoom but have NO idea which direction to go…. :(
Randall, I do not know the exact specifications for the D600, but I would certainly agree with Nikonrumors that it will be an entry-level FX camera. Probably D7000-like DSLR with an FX sensor. I don’t think it will be like the D3200/D5100, since it would not make an attractive camera at all…
Thanks Nasim for excellent review as always!!!
I had ordered this lens yesterday. I do use mainly 24-50mm for landscape photography and thought that it would definitely give me value for money than investing higher in other lenses. I hope the sample i will get, delivers :-) Can you post some landscape photos taken with this lens, if any? That would also give good idea of how this lens actually performs for landscapes in field. There is no snap here which resembles that…
Thanks once again.
Prajakt
Prajakt, unfortunately, I do not have good landscape photos worth posting. We have been extremely busy this summer with weddings and I did not have a chance to get out and do some landscape photography with the Tamron 24-70mm. Considering how well it did in the lab and during weddings, I am sure it will do a terrific job for landscape photography as well.
Hi Nasim,
Just to reiterate your findings, when I tested it with my D800, almost all the pros and cons that you have highlighted are matching with my observations. The onion bokeh is much more pronounced than what I had thought. Ofcourse, people who would be mainly shooting landscapes, might not even notice it.
The reason that I am replying to your comment is, one strange observation I have. I tried many shots with VC On and then Off. But to my surprise, 95% of the shots taken when VC was off are sharper than when VC was actually ON. This is to the extent that I thought that there is typo in VC On -Off switch positions. I tried different focal lengths. Then I tried pure landscapes at 24mm in bright daylight, but the results of VC On are having slight blur and hence lack of sharpness over same photo taken with VC was off. I know that someone might say that I am not activating VC effectively or not waiting till VC is actually on. But personally I don’t feel so. Have you heard anything similar about this lens?
Do reply back. It would be great help.
Prajakt
I have had this lens since it first came out. The issue with the VC being sharper off appears to be a shutter speed issue. If you are shooting faster than around 1/60th of a sec, then you should turn VC off. Below this speed, the VC does wonders. I know this is not optimal, but it is what it is.
The review, which is up to the high standard of all of Nasim’s reviews, is excellent. There are two things that were not mentioned, though. Both are in regards to video. The VC is FANTASTIC for video, almost replicating a steady-cam. Also, the lens is Parfocal, which again, helps with video since the focus stays pretty much the same as you zoom in or out (and since all DSLR’s are horrible at Auto-Focus, this is a great help!).
Finallly, in a real-world test, I printed a 20 x 30 inch photo taken at 24mm and F8 where the complex picture was sharp across the frame. It makes sense now that I know the lens’ strength!
Thanks Joe for confirming this issue. I have used Canon, Nikon lenses with IS and VR. But this is for the first time I have observed that keeping VC ON in good lighting conditions, has much adverse effect. I was surprised that none of the reviews available on internet are mentioning this issue and hence was worried.
Prajakt
I just bought this lens and have same problem, the IQ is much sharper with VC OFF in fair or good lighting. In low lighting the VC seems to work better. Very sharp lens tested it against the new Canon 24-70mm II and kept this lens.
Насим ака, рекомендуете? разница в цене какая? Стоит ли качество разницы в цене?
Thank you for another great review!
Though I wonder how this Tamron compares to Nikon’s new 24-120 f/4. With image stablization and similar build quality, I think that one might be a fairer comparison than the budget oriented 24-85 vr.
cheers
Nasim,
Thank you for your in-depth OPINION of the Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 DI VC USD.
Really an amazing piece of glass!
- a 24-70 which is a 22-50 mm
- a f/2,8 which is a f/4
- ….
But it get a VR ! Exceptionnal.
Ge
Hello Mr. Mansurov,
I am trying to save for the D600 and a good lens to go with it. As such I have been going back and forth between the nikon 24-120 f4 and the new tamron 24-70 VC. I enjoy shooting my three year old daughter and weddings for family members and friends. I would like to shoot weddings professionally in the future. I currently have the nikon D7000 with the nikon sb700, nikon 16-85, nikon 35 1.8, nikon 85 1.8d and tamron 70-200 2.8. So after your review of the new tamron, which would you recommend for an aspiring wedding photographer. Thank you for all that you do and for your time.
Sincerely,
Jorge
Jorge,
For weddings and parties D7000 + 17-55 2.8 + SB900 rocks.
Thank you Alex for your response. Yes, I agree the 17-55 with D7000 is great because I have heard and seen sample images with this combination. However, I am hoping to get a nikon D600 when it comes out. So I am trying to decide on a lens to go with the full frame sensor. So far I am considering a nikon 24-120 f4, tamron 24-70 VC or a used nikon 24-70 2.8. Unfortunately, at this time I can not justify to my wife spending more than $1300 for a lens. So if anyone, especially Nasim, has input on which of these three lenses would be better I would appreciate it. Thank you.
From my understanding, the main question here, how heavy the usage could be.
3rd party lenses and wide-range Nikons doesn`t provide the pro-level build quality and go down relatively quickly. So for everyday pro-usage the answer is Nikon 24-70 new/used.
If you are planning to do the ocassional sessions – 24-120:4 is best value:
1. It good enough optically.
2. f4 works well for person shooting (the details of person+bokeh).
3. You may have more zoom range. I did a couple of shoots of fashion show. When models was at far edge of podium, I missed the longer zoom with my 17-55 and 50:1.4G (75 at DX).
Thank you for the review. I was really looking forward to read a review of this lens ever since I read about it a couple of months ago.
I have a question. Did you guys try this lens with video on the D800 (or any other Nikon DSLR with AF video)? The reason it’s because I know most third party lenses won’t autofocus when shooting video on Nikon cameras. When I had the D7000, I got the Sigma 17-50mm which I loved it, but AF wouldn’t work with video.
Good review.
Anyway I feel to point out that Sony is a different system as it has the stabilizer on the body.
Thanks for your work on the site,
Mat
Thank you Mattia! Yes, you are right, Sony has in-body stabilization and does not need lenses to have IS.
It is not true . Sony makes some camcorder with e mount ,and if you use la-ea2 adapter you can use lens wit A mount . Unfortunately tamron makes this lens without stabilization for sony . So my sony fs100 can not get advance of this technology . Just native e mount lens has oss (stabilization ) .
Dear Nasim,
I am just getting into photography. You website is incredible! I have this lens on my new Nikon D800. I use the lens for my all around lens. Do you see any problems with wide use of this lens?
Dan
Hello Nasim,
Great review and thank you for maintaining such a fantastic site. Your content is so valuable to us, and I for one am an avid follower, and sincerely appreciate all that you publish. I upgraded from a D2X to the D4 for awhile back and have been extremely pleased with the move. I have been considering selling my old and very well used 28-70 2.8 and upgrading to the 24-70, however the lack of VR, and some of the performance issues which have surfaced have made me rethink my plan. Now, with the Tamron hitting the market, I’m glad I held back. Anyhow, do you have any thoughts as to how the Tamron might stack up against the 28-70? I know the question is a bit open ended, but any thoughts or opinions would be helpful. Again, great site Nasim, and thank you!!
Hi Nasim,
Thanks for the thorough review! Also, it’s great to see a 3rd party lens manufacturer producing such a high quality lens.
Just to clarify one point. You said “The Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G has been my favorite landscape lens for a while now … However, a number of optical issues have made it tough to keep shooting with it, especially when lenses like Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR are available today.”
Does this mean the 24-120mm is optically superior to the 24 – 70? Or did I misinterpret what you said?
Thanks!
Thank you! Yours is the most neutral of the reviews I’ve read for this lens. Your caveats (considering pros/cons and price) cancel out your “great buy” rating. It’s really too bad, I’d hoped this would be my new main lens: fast, sharp, light, with VC and great bokeh.
I sold my 5DII and 95% of my Canon glass and have yet to buy my D800E. My main lens was the 24-105 f/4L: versatile, portable, but busy bokeh. Switching to Nikon, I was planning on a no-compromise walk-around lens, was even considering Nikon’s heavy 24-70 f/2.8G. I use the long and wide ends equally, so the Tamron’s only fair sharpness from 35 to 70mm is a bummer. Guess there’s no such thing as a perfect zoom lens:
- Nikon’s 24-70: no VR, heavy
- Nikon’s 24-120: slow (stopping subject motion), bad bokeh
- Tamron’s 24-70: soft ≥35mm, terrible bokeh & vignetting.
Until I found the Tamron, I was going to get a Nikon 24-120 f/4G, Samyang 35mm f/1.4 for nighttime, and Nikon 16-35 f/4G for ultrawide. I was super excited that the Tamron could replace both the 24-120 and the 35mm prime because of the fast f/2.8 and VR. But bokeh is pretty important to me, so the Tamron won’t work for me.
I guess I’m back to the 24-120 + 35mm f/1.4, but I’m going to save $1000 by going with the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 instead of the Nikon 16-35. And maybe a 70-200 + 1.4TC for nature. Anyone have a better setup to suggest?
David
David, the Nikon 24-120mm has better bokeh than the Tamron 24-70mm and its AF is actually almost as fast. So that is certainly the best option for you in my opinion. As for Samyang lenses, they are good optically, but I hope you are aware that they are all manual focus.
Thanks, Nasim! I was aware that Samyang are MF. But with the 35′s great price and better optics than any of Nikon’s (some say better than Zeiss, also manual), I’ve little to lose. I’ll learn to focus fast! Truth is, my trusty 24-105L was fine at night (except subject motion blur), so the 24-120 will be even better at night thanks to VR II. As for the 14mm, I’ll likely use it for architectural/landscape at f/8-11 (diffraction limited), so MF will be less of an issue thanks to the DOF.
Hi Nasim, thanks for your advice last September. I bought my D800E last month and rather than a standard zoom, tried to go all primes for better bokeh (Sigma 35 1.4 and 85 1.4 + Samyang 14). I shot a few thousand frames in Northern Italy in late April, and I got really fed up with the lens changes. :( Now I’m back to the old choice:
- Nikon’s 24-70: no VR, heavy, soft at wide end
- Nikon’s 24-120: sharp, slow (stopping subject motion), bad bokeh
- Tamron’s 24-70: VR, sharp <35mm, terrible bokeh
One new option I hadn't considered in September is blurring bad bokeh in post. The other is to keep the primes and get the Quikdraw system, but that's still no zoom lens, and of course, no VR with primes. But I did not have any serious issues with motion blur in my prime lens shots, so with fast glass, maybe VR isn't as big a deal.
Re: the Samyang 14, I got the electronic aperture control and focus confirmation beep version. I love the sharpness and warm colors when shot ≥f/5.6. I don't get the beep, but I have no problems shooting landscapes. Haven't been able to get the available lens profiles to work on my D800E. I'm considering using the Lens Profile Creator to make my own, but the process sounds rather onerous.
Hey Nasim,
Am new to this, does Tamron lens work on nikon body , I got a DSLR 5100.
Yes. As long as a lens can work on one Nikon body, it can work for all other bodies. This is because all Nikon bodies use ‘F’ mount. This is unlike Canon bodies. And because this Tamron lens has in-built motor, it will also autofocus on your D5100. (Btw, the D5100 will not AF on AF-D lenses.).
Almost any lense. pre-AI lenses can even break the body. AI and AI-S lenses do not work completely on cheaper bodies which do not support non-chip lenses (D-90 does not, D300s and D7000 do, for example).
These lenses are pretty cheap and work well in low light photography. It helps that the lenses do not focus beyond infinity.
I would like to have the Tamron to use it for landscapes, at 24mm and opened at f/8 (in this case I don’t care about bokeh), but I have already the Nikon 24-70, that after reading your review I think it is overall a better lens (more flexible). Being a perfectionist I would prefer to save money and get the Nikon 24 f/1.4 (sharpest Nikon lens with nice bokeh), to use it for landscape and other situations. Thank you for your review.
Hello Nasim. Another great review..well done!
Some years ago Tamron had released the 28-105 f2.8 lense which I think it’s still a good purchase … and cheap one for the above focal lenghts. Of course it lacks image stabilization but suppose we park this for a while, what could be the added value to buy the tamron’s 24-70?
Hi Nasim,
thanks for the review on the lens u dont use that often. If u have any experience with Sigma EX 24 mm-70 mm F/2.8 Aspherical D DG Lens For Nikon, can u please tell me where does it stand amongst nikon and tamron?
Also, i am planning to buy Nikkor 17-35 mm f/2.8 lens, so if i could get a brief opinion of yours, that would be great.
thankyou so much
yogesh
Thank you for a fantastic review. It cleared up a lot for me. Yet made my decision a lot harder. I rented the Nikon 24-70 for a weekend and wasn’t blown away by it. I didn’t think it was super sharp and was a little short on the long end. It made me think $1800 was a rip off for it. But after your review I went back and looked at my photos again and I realized that most of the shots I took that weekend were at 2.8 and at the 24mm end. (the weakest area).
Recently, while getting my D800 sensor cleaned, I played with the tamron 24-70 in the store. I shot about 20 frames with it of people in the store and thought it handled well. But when I got home, the images were a little to soft for my liking. After your review, I went back and took a look at the photos. Most of them were zoomed to 70mm at 2.8.(the weakest area). Your review really helped me figure out why I was Luke warm on both lenses.
However I still have a delima. After trying the two lenses and not liking either. I rented the 24-120(after reading your review) and I really like the reach it provided. The only drawbacks were that it was a little soft at f4 and I am not sure that it will be fast enough to shoot weddings with.(reception mainly).
So I would like to ask your opinion on which one of the three you would recommend for wedding and portrait work. I already have some really good primes(24 ,50 ,85 all 1.4) and the 70-200. But I want to start using less gear and focus more on emotion, composition, and concept and not have to swap lenses as much. Any recommendation is appreciated. I love your analysis and I check your site weekly. Thanks.
Hello Mike,
Great question. A réponse would answer my question above.
Hi Mike,
Recently I photographed my brother’s wedding (first time I did something like this) using my Nikon 24-70 as a workhorse, complemented with a Nikon 70-200 VR II, and a Nikon 50mm f/1.8. I love my 24-70mm, it served me very well doing the vast majority of my pics. I think that if you are going to photograph weddings you can not rely only in one lens. Best wishes, Jorge.
Merci pour ce test tres complet, mais avant le nikon , tout était flou .
Hi Nasim,
Thank you very much indeed for this detailed lens review.
I have my eyes on one such Tamron, and although a Canon user, I have found your charts and detailed analysis the best review that currently on the Internet. I appreciate for your efforts and the committment to providing the photographers’ community with a truly useful unbiased real-world review.
Many thanks!
Hi Nasim,
Incredible job !!! As a regular reader of your site, I really have learnt a lot here.
I am new in photography with my Nikon D5100 along with prime lenses 35MM 1.8G & 50MM 1.8G and planning to purchase Nikon/Tamron’s 24-70MM lens.
Your articles on photography are really very very fruitful and beautiful.
Thanks to keeping it like this.
Many Thanks,
Насим, вы планируете протестировать новую Sigma 24-70 DG EX HSM?
Merci pour le comparatif, même si j’aurais apprécié un face à face avec le Nikkor 24-120 f/4.
Thanks for the review.
Hi Nasim,
Very good review. I am new in photography. I order Nikon D600 with kit lens 24-85 + 50 mm 1.8G.
Please advise if I made a good choice or should I get tamron 24-70 mm f/2.8 instead ?
Regards,
Demi
Насим,
Вы планируете тест новой Sigma 24-70 EX HSM?
Спасибо.
Will this Tamron len work on Nikon D80?
I bought D600 for two weeks. Can any professional help me make a decision for a walk-around lens?
Tamron 24-70/f2.8 or
Nikon 24-120/f4
Appreciate it!
Hello Nasim and PhotographyLife followers,
Thank you very much for your comprehensive reviews and such an excellent web site.
Like many others I’m having a tough time deciding if upgrading my D7000 to the D600 is worth it or if I should just go straight to the D800.
Same thing with the lenses. Everybody seems very fond of the Nikon 24-70 and I wonder, is it really that good? Is the Nikon 24-120/Tamron 24-70 a fair competitor?
I’m doing food photography and planning to do it seriously (hopefully) in the near future, so I’m thinking long term here. The lens would be most of the time on a tripod, VR not that relevant but what about image quality? Does the Nikon 24-70 really worth the $500 (EUROS in my case) higher price?
Thanks a lot!
Paula
High Paula,
I have the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 and I love it. It is as very reliable all around zoom, that as Nasim pointed (see Nasim’s Tamron 24-70 review) is better than the Tamron. With the Nikon I never did miss VR, even in low light situations. By other side I red that the Tamrom is performing worst with the VR on, than with the VR off (Tamron’s VR mechanism has other name than Nikon’s name).
However, if you want to photograph food perhaps a 24-70 zoom is not the best option. I think that Lola Manzurov is doing her food photos with primes like the 50mm F1.8 G. That lens is really cheap (220 dollars) and it is the best Nikon 50mm on the market. The 50mm produces a very pleasant bokeh even when the background is close to your subject (as usually happens photographing food). With the money you would save you could buy a second wider prime like the 28mm f/1.8 G (700 dollars). So for 920 bucks you would have a good team to photograph food, with better quality than the one offered by a f/2.8 zoom (I hope I’m not wrong : )
I’ve been a reader for a while, but I think this is my first comment. I find your graphs to be very hard to read. I think you should try to put results side-by-side rather than one above another. This would also be more efficient (e.g. you could compare three or four lenses at a time).
photozone.de has a test on this lens which will help you with the graphs as they also list the numbers. The review on this site gives a better real world comparison against the alternatives.
I’ve never found the mid-range zoom focal length to lend photos much personality, instead offering reliable versatility, so such things as bokeh from 24 to 70 mm don’t concern me too much. I’m more concerned with catching up to moving athletes and sharpness, and was seriously considering this lens. The softness issue touched on here bothers me, though, and after being swayed by the many good reviews for sharpness of the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 yet finding my copy soft as well, I wonder if this could also be a quality control issue. Surely Tamron, makers of one of the sharpest macro lenses around, know how to make an optically sharp lens, but perhaps when zoom is involved skip a beat every so often.
Lastly, the wedding party photo above is masterfully posed, by Lola I presume. Stunning image.
Any input of Oil and Dust issues noted on D600 Sensor?
Thank you for the review Nasim. I’m using Nikon D7000. Based on your experience will this lens work good enough for my non full frame camera, considering the crop factors.
Full frame glass tends to work very well on cropped frame bodies because the lenses are at their best in the center. A crop sized sensor will never see the light coming from the edges of the lense i.e. if a lens has bad corner performance on full frame it might excellent on crop sized bodies.
I am a Nikon shooter and have the 24-70G, but bought the Tamron for one of my Canon cameras after reading photozones testing. This is a viable lens for either sytem. Personally I do not like the bokeh produced by my Nikkor 24-70 lens and never use it for this purpose. If I want nice bokeh I will reach for my 24, 50 and 85mm 1.4 primes. Now that Canon’s raising its pricing for the 24-70 F2.8 it is now a much easier choice for Canon shooters at least. Tamrons lens is more than good enough for most uses. The one niggling issue is the total lack of a dust protector over the rear of the lens.
“Except for 24mm the Nikon (24-70) is clearly better”. What???
Okay, stopped down, the Nikon edges it, but I don’t buy an f2.8 lens to stop it down to f4.0 (especially in a 12th century church), so on that basis I’d say Tamron is the winner at 24mm and 35mm, equal at 50mm, with a win for the Nikon at 70mm (at which point I’d be using a fast 85mm prime on a second body anyway).
Nasim,
I read someone asking previously but did not catch the answer. How do you rate the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 against the Nikon 24-85 (VR and not). Do you think that for general/travel/street usage it is worth the price and weight difference in terms of image quality?
Nasim
I’ve just bought a Sony A99 and have à range of lenses suitable for the ff format, Witherspoon one exception – à standard zoom. Which one would you recommend – the New Tamron, the Sigma of the Carl Zeiss? I am preparera to play even for the CZ if it is better than the other. Main interest is sharpness and contrast. Rgards/ Björn T
Over the past month I have shot with Nikon 24-120 VR , and now I have been able to test Tamron 24-70 VC and Nikon 24-70. The review above is excellent on all accounts. I don’t think there could be a better review anywhere else. Photozone also posts nice reviews but let me tell something that might come as a surprise – reviews are nice but not the same as personal experience with the lenses. On paper, Tamron seems like a no-brainer with VC – wow! at a low price – 1100 $ – wow! So , I ordered one to compare to NIkon 24-70 and did some shooting in a relatively dim room, like I would normally if I had an event to shoot. After a few minutes it became apparent that NIkon is much better – in terms of focusing which with Nikon was practically instant , Tamron hunted a lot with poor lighting but overall was precise. However, in a real life situation , when shooting an event, I would say you are going to end up with a lot more shots from Nikon than Tamron. People under-appreciate this and it certainly does not show up in sharpness tests , but in real life it makes all the difference. After this test , I did some tripod shooting of stationary objects – Tamron was good at 24 – a very tiny bit better than Nikon in the corners and roughly the same in the center. By 50 mm , Tamron was way behind Nikon in the middle of the frame and corners. By they way, 14-24 2.8 beat them both in the corners at 24 mm – it’s weakest focal length.
Another consideration – and this is something that many people would be divided about – esthetics- Nikon is simply beautiful -I like it’s strong, simple esthetics and if feels very good , albeit heavy.
The bokeh on the Tamron looks awful… Was thinking of getting one, till I saw that…
Any chance the effect was an artifact of some texture or pattern in the light, like a partially in focus light bulb filament, etc?
Check the sample of what ever lens you get. Some of my shooters have the Canon 24-70 2.8L and I have sometimes seen similar bokeh issues. But I would have to say most clients will never ever see the problem.
Hi Nassim ,
Thank you for your good detailed review of the tamron 24/70 . I am disappointed about the lense Beiing sharp at 24mn and it deteriorates at 70mn. I intend to use this lense as well as landscaping and indoors rock concert poorly lighted . I have a Nikon d 600 with a tokina 28/70 f2.8 which is not as sharp on my d600 .what do you think of the Nikon 24/120mn f4 instead ?
Thank you for your helping making the proper choice.
Henri
Hi,
Thanks for your article. I have a Canon T3i (600D) and I would replace the 18-55 (Frustrating lens according to me). I already have a Tamron 10-24mm and this 24-70 seems to be a good choice for a standard lens.
Is this a good choice according to you ? I mainly do photos of landscapes and street scenes.
Thanks !
Own the tamron 17-50 2.8 ( since mine is a crop camera it amounts to 24-70 on a full frame) and love it. Its always on my camera now.
thanks for the review.
Hi Nasim, great review as always.
Nasim, last Dec I moved in to the world of DSLR (previously owning a Sony Sybershot).
I travel a LOT – I work for an international luxury hotel collection in sales – so I get to go to some very nice places gaining a greater understanding of the product which in turn allows me to sell the destination more effectively…(yes, its a nice gig – someone has to do it). So this was one reason why I wanted a great camera. The other is I recently became a father – so documenting my family life was also a great reason (and big part of the justification to the missus why I could spend so much money on camera gear!!!).
So, I bought D600 – which I love (few dust issues to begin with but seems to have settled down) and also the NIkon 28-30mm. I then bought 50mm 1.8 g because I recognized requirement for something in low light. I LOVE the DOF on this lens – and that its so sharp.
Next on the list was a wide angle b/c landscape photography is a great passion – and I ended up with the 14-24mm plus the Fotodiox Ultra filter kit. Yes, its all bulky – but I love it.
So, with the 50mm 1.8g and the 14-24mm I can really see the difference in sharpness VS the 28-30mm BUT its very functional esp when you travel like I do.
I really really LOVE the DOF that I can achieve with the 50mm and am debating between the Tamron 24-70mm OR the nikon 85mm 1.8g as according to DXOMark these are excellent lenses for the D600 (far and away superior to the 28-300mm)
I’ve gone through Lightroom and can see that over 3,000 shots so far I am in the 24-70 focal range 50% of the time…
I am now in a dilemma. Do I –
1) Sell the 28-300mm and get the 24-70mm? I also am an avid surfer and use 300mm for surfing shots. Maybe get the 80-300mm? But is it worth it selling the 28-30mm? Is the 80-300mm any better?
2) Keep the 28-30mm – and get the 85mm 1.8g instead? Then I have two primes with great DOF options. SHARP as on D600 according to reports. I have found that with my 50mm 1.8g I am cropping the images in many circumstances….
Torn between what to do.
Any advice from anyone welcome!!!
S
Sorry – realised a few typos in text.
To be clear I have the 28-300mm Nikkor….
S
Have owned many 85s including the 85G. if you want and 85 look carefully at the sigma. Cheaper and in many reports better than the Nikon. Faster AF which is good for kids photos. Cheaper works well if you think you may damage or lose it on a beach.
I also own the tamron 24-70 and the 24-70g. Both are good lenses. People moan about onion bokeh but frankly if u want bokeh get fast prime. The stabilisation is much more important.
Do note I have been a pro wedding photographer for many years and travel the globe doing this. Owning the branded lens is over rated and not something required to get the job done. Visit my site and be the judge of that. :-)
.
Gotta hate the iPad. Broken English in my post and also screwed my URL with autocorrect. You can click my name on this post to see the photos. The problem in these forums is that everyone has an opinion but you have no idea if they are a working photographer or someone who studies mtf charts :-p