10-15-2015, 06:29 PM
I only saw Matt Granger's review but I have to say that there are some areas where the Tamron is definitely better.
For example, I can vouch that lens flare is a big problem on the Nikon.
However, there are two things (three actually) that will make the Nikon a keeper for me.
1. 14mm is wider than 15mm
There is a big difference between 14mm and 16mm. I have the 16-35mm f4 which I use quite a bit because it can take filters. Sure, I can get an adapter for the 14-24 but the costs are ridiculous. 15mm may not be a big difference to 14mm for a lot of people but that extra 1mm is what you are paying for.
2. The 14-24mm Nikon has worked flawlessly for me in some pretty hard conditions. I have used it in mid winter where it was left for 2 hour+ time-lapse stuff. Would the Tamron work over a number of cold winters? Maybe, maybe not.
3. I buy most my stuff second hand. I paid 1200€ for the 14-24mm, so that is about the same cost of a new Tamron.
If I didn't already have the Nikon I would seriously think about getting the Tamron, though.
For example, I can vouch that lens flare is a big problem on the Nikon.
However, there are two things (three actually) that will make the Nikon a keeper for me.
1. 14mm is wider than 15mm
There is a big difference between 14mm and 16mm. I have the 16-35mm f4 which I use quite a bit because it can take filters. Sure, I can get an adapter for the 14-24 but the costs are ridiculous. 15mm may not be a big difference to 14mm for a lot of people but that extra 1mm is what you are paying for.
2. The 14-24mm Nikon has worked flawlessly for me in some pretty hard conditions. I have used it in mid winter where it was left for 2 hour+ time-lapse stuff. Would the Tamron work over a number of cold winters? Maybe, maybe not.
3. I buy most my stuff second hand. I paid 1200€ for the 14-24mm, so that is about the same cost of a new Tamron.
If I didn't already have the Nikon I would seriously think about getting the Tamron, though.