In the world of photography there is something called the “holy trinity”, the three lenses that “every professional event photographer” uses to take the majority of their photographs. These are the 16-24mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8, and 70-200mm f/2.8. They cover a full range of 16-200mm at a constant f/2.8 aperture, providing multiple levels of framing, subject isolation, background compression, and pleasing out-of-focus blur. All major brands have them and they are often the sharpest, fastest focusing, and most robust lenses in their lineups. They’re also the most expensive, generally costing over $2,000 each.
Enter My Lens Collection
I don’t own a holy trinity, but instead have more of a “virtuous duo with a holy friend” in the form of Nikon’s Z 24-120mm f/4S, Nikon’s 70-200mm f/4 AF-S, and Tamron’s 15-30mm f/2.8 VC G1. It’s quite a patchwork as the latter two are also F mount lenses. I’ve long considered turning my holy friend into a holy duo and bringing a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens into the mix. I haven’t because my 24-120mm lenses (even the F mount version) have been so good that it wasn’t worth the money.
I certainly wasn’t going to spend $2,400 on a Nikon’s Z mount version, and wasn’t willing to pay $1,500 for a used one (except that time when I did). I was enticed by Tamron and Sigma’s 24-70’s in the $1,200 range, but even that was too much. I thought Tamron’s 28-75 f/2.8 G2 looked pretty good at $850, but still, that was a lot to spend on a lens that was only one stop faster with a narrower zoom range than my 24-120’s.
A Matter of Happenstance
Enter Tamron’s 24-70mm f/2.8 VC G2 (aka the SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2). It’s the F mount version of Tamron’s holy 24-70 and it’s well reviewed, going toe-to-toe with Nikon’s F mount 24-70. But it still costs $1,200 new and around $850 used, and I’m still not willing to pay that. What I am willing to pay is $261.
I just happened to come across a “heavily used” model at Adorama recently and decided to take a chance. Adorama describes “heavily used” as follows:
Barrel appears to have been used heavily, showing multiple dings, scrapes/scratches, heavy brassing. Lens glass may have fungus, excessive dust, and/or scratches that can affect picture quality.
Based on the photos alone, it certainly did have scuffs and scrapes on the body as well as marks on the front glass. I didn’t know if it had other issues like haze, fungus, or moisture. I didn’t know if it had been dropped, whether it was decentered, or whether the autofocus or vibration compensation worked correctly. I had no idea, but for $261 it was worth a look. If I didn’t like it, I had 30 days to send it on back, no questions asked. It was one of those can’t-miss opportunities.
Adventures in Heavy Use
Upon arrival it was packaged very well, as expected from Adorama. It was wrapped in multiple layers of taped bubble wrap so there was no way it could be damaged during transport. It looked like it had seen some action, with some scuffs on the outside, pits on the front element, a crack in the filter thread, and a crack on the distance scale window, but was otherwise clean.
The zoom and manual focus rings were smooth and in good condition and the AF and VC buttons worked fine. I was worried when I mounted it to my Z8 and briefly saw 2.8 appear for the aperture value before disappearing and showing “Error” on the rear scree. At this point AF and VC didn’t work and the camera didn’t know the aperture of the lens. Not good. It turns out that I simply needed to install a firmware update to make it compatible with Nikon’s FTZ adapter and luckily I had Tamron’s TAP-In-Console to do it with. After a few minutes I had an aperture value, autofocus, and vibration control.
While everything works, there are some issues. Autofocus is not always accurate: it can hunt a bit and sometimes doesn’t actually lock on when it says it does. I fiddled with AF micro adjustment a bit and got it to be close enough, but there were still some misses. There is also a bit of decentering, mostly in the lower right corner / bottom with a little in the upper right at all zoom levels. They are pushed to the edges and aren’t always noticeable depending on the shot. Center sharpness is good and vibration compensation works correctly.
I’ve taken a bunch of images with it and they actually look pretty good. Given all of the dings and the “heavily used” condition, images are surprisingly good. It loses contrast in bright light, which is partially because it doesn’t have a lens hood. While good, the images aren’t as bitingly sharp and contrasty as images I take with my 24-120mm f/4, though sometimes they come pretty close. In the cases that they do, a slightly higher level of background blur is definitely apparent.
The lens’s optical issues are somewhat hidden by my typical shooting style as well. I don’t often take images with bright sun in the frame, so the dings on the front element aren’t really an issue. My subjects don’t tend to be on the absolute edges of the frame either, so a little decentering there is tolerable.
Conflicted
Despite its reasonable performance, I remained conflicted. While the extra background blur was nice, it wasn’t enough for me to choose this lens over my 24-120mm when I go out. I’ll want the extra sharpness and contrast of the 24-120mm and I can mimic some of the background blur by zooming to 120mm. In addition, I already have a 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4, (and soon) an 85mm f/1.4 that are sharper and provide better subject isolation than the 24-70 ever will. I think it would spend most of its time in my closet, despite its competence.
But it was such a good deal that I wanted to keep it, and If I didn’t already have such great glass, I would have. But that’s not a good reason to keep a lens that you probably won’t use. So despite all of my testing and my great deal, I decided to send it back to Adorama and get my $261 back, less shipping, to spend elsewhere. Hopefully someone else will come across it and benefit from a great lens at a great price, as long as they can look beyond a few, arguably minor, defects.
Relatively Ambitious 