Tamron 28-75 f 2.8 lens for Nikon
 

Had anybody tried this lens? How does if compare to the Nikon's 28-70 f2.8 lens or 35-70 f2.8? I heard so many good things about this Tamron lens but I heard that Tamrons are crappy lens. For the price it is so hard to resist.

What are your experience with this lens?

I have both lenses. The Nikkor looks better wide open (center to edge sharpness and contrast). The quality difference depends on what you’re shooting. For nature stuff outdoors, I would think the Tamron would be fine. I like the Nikkor, because I shoot alot of weddings and need to shoot wide open alot.

-John

"The Beast" 28-70 is wonderfully sharp but big and heavy. The 35-70 is a great lens and a real bargain. Much smaller than the 28-70, still very sharp, and probably one of the best 2.8 zooms that you can get for the price, around $300 used. But of course, you are losing a bit on the wide end especially if you are shooting digital. I have the 17-55 2.8 which is about perfect.

That said, there are a lot of people saying great things about the Tamron version too. I've never shot it though.

as with all 3rd-party lenses, some are fantastic, some are not. but the reviews at fredmiranda will give you pretty good guidance. i use the tamron 24-135mm f.3.5 as my daily lens, and it's great.

I have both the 17-55mm DX and the Beast 28-70mm. The 17-55DX is sharper wide open, while the 28-70mm takes over above f/4 .

I heard good things about the 17-55 too. I would like to shoot weddings. Its just that the Tamron seems to be really affordable at this point.

Do you guys think that the 17-55 would be more suitable rather than the Tamron 28-75 or the Nikon 28-70 (THe Beast)?

FWIW, I picked up a Nikon 35-70mm f3.5 for a little over $100 used at a local shop. Optically it seems very nice, but I don't like the cheap plastic feel so much.

I much prefer the focal length of the 17-55 over the 28-70. Paired with the 70-200, it's a great combo for wedding work. I didn't find much difference if any in sharpness between the two.

For indoor shoots, you'll appreciate the 17mm wide end of the 17-55DX. I think the decision is simple as an owner of both the 17-55DX and the 28-70mm Beast. The Beast has a longer history, so you will get a lot of positive reviews for its performance on the wider image circle of 35mm film. As Steve Winwood sang "Love the one you're with."

If you need 17mm, get the DX.
If you plan to shoot at f/2.8, get the 17-55DX .
If you plan to do most of your shooting at f/5.6 or narrower, get the 28-70m Beast.

Going to 70mm allows for that nice, wide aperture isolation. However, you're better served at that range in sharpness by the 85mm f/1.4 or with VR/tele by the 70-200mm VR.

[QUOTE= As Steve Winwood sang "Love the one you're with."

QUOTE]
actually it was Steven Stills that said that....

Hi Billy,

If you have the money, the Nikon 17-55DX is an outstanding lens. But, it's only for digital Nikon SLRs (no full frame sensors). You haven't said what camera you are using.

If you are using digital Nikon and don't want to blow out your bank account, I'd take a serious look at Sigma's 18-50 f/2.8 EX DC. With the cropped sensor the lens functions as a 27-75mm zoom and has excellent sharpness by f/4. The Tamron 28-75 f 2.8 lens would have a functional zoom range of 42-112mm.

If you are using a film SLR, the Tamron isn't a bad option, but personally I'd rather make the effort to find a good condition second-hand Nikkor lense.

You do get what you pay for. Quality variation is common with lenses from Tamron, and a bit with Sigma too.