Before I start, if you’re looking for test shots of charts and the like, then this isn’t the review for you.  This is my real world, working experience.

I upgraded to the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 from the Tamron 17-50mm VC, after deciding to go full frame with my cameras.  I wanted to go to the Tamron, but I came across a refurbished Nikon 24-70 at the Nikon repair center in Mississauga, Ontario when I was bringing in one of my cameras for cleaning.  The cost was, I thought, unbeatable, and I decided to go ahead and purchase it at the time.

A lot of Nikon shooters used to  prefer Nikon/Nikkor lenses vs the ‘third party’ versions such as Sigma and Tamron.  Even to a lesser extent today, if you review the message boards of photography sites, they will have people insisting that you purchase the Nikon branded lenses. This did sway my decision a bit.

I should have gone with my gut and just waited and purchased the Tamron 24-70.  

Don’t get me wrong, the Nikon focused quicker than almost any lenses I had up to that point and it really was my workhorse for a while.  Paired with my D700, or even the D7100 I was shooting with as a backup, was great.

My main reason for going to the Tamron was the VC.  At the time, Nikon had not yet released the VR version.  I thought, to be honest, that I was giving up quality, to go with the lens with VC.  I shake when I shoot sometimes, and felt, even though I didn’t need it in all situations, especially with the wider angles, I wanted it to help out when I was shooting in darker rooms and just didn’t want to worry about it.  The reviews were all glowing about this lens, but a part of me just couldn’t comprehend that it would be better.

I finally went for it and my expectations were exceeded so far that I just couldn’t wrap my head around what I was seeing.  I purchased the Nikon D750 at the time, and thought at first that was the only reason, but then I shot it on my D700 and realized that it was indeed the lens.

Even if you are not a pro on a budget, then this lens is not a compromise.  It’s amazingly sharp, focus is very quick, with great colours, and actually let in more light than my Nikon.  I constantly had to dial in ⅓-½ stop darker exposure compensation when shooting in aperture priority, or ⅓-½ faster shutter in manual vs the Nikon.  The CA was also consistently less than my Nikon, although the Nikon was never a problem to me.

I’ve spoken about all the pros, now the cons.

The Tamron is definitely not on the same quality level for the build.  It is a tank, to me, but the all metal body of the Nikon made it feel like the Nikon would stand up to a lot more abuse.  There are those out there though that will argue that a plastic or composite body will actually stand up to being dropped better than the metal body.  Personally, I don’t want to find out.  I have dropped an older 50mm 1.4D all metal body and it was done afterwards.

The focus ring on the Tamron isn’t great for manual focus, but I find the majority of new AF lenses to be the same.  The older film lenses just feel better when trying to manually focus, but I’ve never been a huge manual focus shooter.  (What I’m shooting now is even better. Spoilers!)  

This isn’t necessarily a con, but the zoom ring was stiff.  Some people may not like it.  It was just right for me personally, but I thought I’d mention it because it definitely had a different feel from the Nikon 24-70 I had, and ones I’ve tried in the past.

Overall I would, as the title points out, suggest people to purchase the Tamron over the Nikon in most situations.  It’s less expensive, and optically better, so I don’t see why you would purchase the Nikon.  I haven’t shot the Canon 24-70 for a number of years, and that was only using someone else's for a few shots, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the result was the same for the Canon version.

I purchased my Tamron from Henry’s in Mississauga, my favourite gear store.  Tamron is distributed and warrantied by Amplis, in Canada.

The photo is from the Tamron USA website.