Can tamron 28-75 give same results as 50 and 35 primes?

<p>I am using Nikon 50 mm 1.8 with my D 7000. I am thinking of getting something wider. Shall I go for Nikon 35 1.8 or any 3rd party standard zooms 17 -50 ( 2.8) or tamron 28-75? Can tamron 28-75 give same results as 50 and 35 primes?</p>

 

<p>Yes and no...depends on what you are asking about. Can you be more specific? </p>

<p>Hi<br>

I mean IQ, sharpnes, color and bokeh etc.</p>

<p>Well, Anil, those are all pretty subjective imo. I'll say the the bokeh won't be the same because they have different DOF due to their (different) relative apertures. Others can chime in on the IQ, color and sharpness... </p>

<p>My experience with the Tamron 28-75 is that Tamron's quality control on this particular lens leaves a lot to be desired. If you get a good sample, then it might well compete with the prime lenses on definition alone. If you get a bad sample then you'll have a fight on your hands getting it exchanged or repaired by either Tamron or the retailer. DO NOT buy this lens from an Internet source - no matter how cheap. Buy from a shop where you can actually test the lens before buying. Look for evenness of corner definition and watch out for a tilted plane of focus. These show up at the 28mm end of the zoom range, but probably not as obviously on DX as on a full-frame camera. Be upfront with the retailer over concerns about quality control and get an undertaking that they'll replace the lens without quibble if it proves faulty.</p>

<p>My answer is no, unfortunately. I own the Tamron as well as the latest Nikon 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 lenses, and the Tamron lags a bit. I does sharpen up nicely stopped down to f/4, so that you won't see the difference unless you pixel peep, but if you shoot at f/2.8 you lose some sharpness. (This can, of course, be said of most or all f/2.8 zooms.) The 35/1.8G and 50/1.8G can both be used at f/1.8 with acceptable-to-very-good results depending on the circumstances, and by the time you stop either of them down to f/2.8 they're excellent. Once you stop down to numbers like f/5.6 and f/8 the differences become minimal.</p>

<p>So, for the primes you've got price (both for the cost of one of the Tamron zoom), and image quality at large apertures. For the Tamron you've got convenience of a zoom, value (compared to other f/2.8 FX zooms on price/performance the Tamron is very inexpensive - not hard to find used for $250 or thereabouts - and almost as good, because the weaknesses I'm describing are common to most or all lenses of this type) and image quality stopped down.</p>

<p>I went to my local camera store to check out the Tamron on my D700. I was happy with the shots at 28mm so I purchased that specific lens. I have primes when I know I need the speed, I purchased this for times when I needed the range and light weight vs four primes. I don't use this lens wide open, usually f5.6 to f11.</p>

<p>28-75 would not be an ideal everyday lens on a DX camera. Nice portrait zoom perhaps, but it doesn't go wide enough.</p>

<p>I think the 35/17-50 combo would be a way better choice.</p>

<p>Anil, do you have any other lens beside the 50 f/1.8? Having something like the kitlens would answer already most of your questions.<br>

For most, I think, 28mm on a APS-C camera is not wide enough, but for others, it's totally fine. In the end, only you can really decide which focal lengths work best for <em>you</em>. The Tamrons have a good reputation, but I am not amazed by Andy's findings. Lenses improve when stopped down, so the f/1.8 primes will be very likely to perform better at f/2.8 than the zooms. Here, also depends: what matters to you? Wide aperture performance, or f/5.6 thereabouts? We cannot really answer that without knowing your style of photography, subjects etc.</p>

<p>Bokeh is personal preference, so in order to be sure you like it, use a site like pbase.com to see photos with the specific lenses. To me, the AF-D 50 f/1.8 has about the worst bokeh of all my lenses, but that's just my opinion. Yours can be the opposite, and we'd both be right.</p>

Oh, one other thing. I should be more fair to the Tamron by saying that my copy greatly improves when used on a

D7000 instead of a D90, because of AF fine tuning. Set at -20 it becomes a much, much better lens. Usable at 2.8 in

a pinch. It's actually become my everyday lens.

<blockquote>

<p>I mean IQ, sharpnes, color and bokeh etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>those are three separate categories (IQ and sharpness are the same thing). first of all the tamron is quite contrasty when used right. it's not super-sharp at 2.8, but then neither is the 50/1.8. it's a killer lens from f/4 onwards. it has better bokeh than either the 35 or the 50, especially at 75mm. the colors are spot on, although the primes each have their own signature. a better comparison is probably the 17-50, which is very sharp in the center at 2.8.</p>

<p>regarding the 17-50 vs. 28-75, the 17-50 is a better walkaround lens on DX; the 28-75 is a better portrait lens.</p>

 

<p>Thanks for the responses. Was thinking about Tamron 28-75 as I didn't find good reviews about sigma and Tamron 17- 50 ( 2.8). I am not sure whether i will be able to get good copy of Tamron 28-75 in shops here in Delhi ( Not sure I will able to test it that quickly) . What about Tokina 11- 16 and Nikon 35mm combo?<br>

Wouter, yes right now I have only 50 mm 1.8.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What about Tokina 11- 16 and Nikon 35mm combo?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that would be a weird combo. the 11-16 is not great for people shots. the 35 is, but i think you'd be better off with a standard zoom starting off at 17- or 18--.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> the 11-16 is not great for people shots. the 35 is, but i think you'd be better off with a standard zoom starting off at 17- or 18--.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Anil,</p>

<p>I'm thinking you might not realize just how different a 28-75 is from a 17-50. There are GREAT reviews of the 17-50 all over the place. photo.net is FILLED with people who love it. You do realize that the crop factor means that the 28-75 is equivalent (in field of view) to about 42mm - 105 on DX, and the 17-50 is more like 28 - 75. Some of the stuff you're saying makes me think you might not realize that.</p>

<p>The 11-16 is, indeed, NOT a good choice for people shots unless you're going for a weird special effect or have a huge group in a tight space (even then, I'd try not to use it -- and I own one and LOVE it). The 35 is very good for people in groups, though.</p>

<p>Hi Anil,</p>

<p>I've had both the 17-50 and the 28-75. Had to let them go when times were tough. But as there will be money coming in soon I will invest in some new kit - probably the 28-75 because I want the extra length for portraits (see the attached image taken by a friend of mine with a Nikon D80 and Tamron 28-75 ).</p>

<p>I have the 35/1.8 and it's a great lens for what it costs, as well as the 18-55 VR which I will probably hold on to as a backup until I invest in a travel-type zoom.</p><div></div>

<h5>And a 100% crop</h5><div></div>

<p>Peter, I respectfully disagree with your statement that the 28-75 isn't good on a DX body. I've used it as my main lens since around 2005, and have no plans to change it anytime soon, even for the AF-S version. While it may lack a wide angle on a DX body, the fact is that not everyone is concerned with a wide perspective. I tend to isolate my subjects a little (people or things), and a little more on the telephoto end is better than a wide for me. I had the Nikon 18-70 DX before that, and found myself rarely using it wider than 35mm or so.</p>

<p>Of course I do have a super-wide zoom, but my own take on WA lenses is that on the rare occassion that I want to use one, it's always crazy wide; never 24mm or 28mm.</p>

<p>Zack,</p>

<p>Reading what the OP has written makes me think that he might be more of a "typical" photographer. The typical photographer seems to want a wide to short tele "kit" zoom. I've known people that ended up with their old film lens of 28 - xx when they went digital. They were, to a man (or woman) not happy.</p>

<p>My old Tamron SP manual 28-80 is go-to on my #1 DX body. That's much where I prefer to work, I don't even own anything shorter. If I have to shoot a big wide scene or group I just put a roll of film in my Hasselblad with the 50mm fle, that's blistering sharp right to the edge. Also on my old Tamron the front element is pretty big in diameter and at 28 on the DX there is hardly any distortion on the edges, no vignette, stays sharp across. So, to each their own I guess. I used my friends 17-50 or whatever to test because I considered buying one, I hated the wide end, it was unwieldy to me, rather use the Hasselblad any day. Like usual, it's whatever works for you.</p>

<p>Peter and Eric<br>

If it is 17/18 - 50 /55, which one shall i get, Sigma / Tamron/ Tokina ? all of them have multiple versins in 2.8 . </p>

My vote is the Tamron that's got VC. If it fits the budget.

<p>I think the Tamron, and I'd get the VC if I could. I hear GREAT things about the Sigma, though. What I've heard about the Tokina isn't so promising.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If it is 17/18 - 50 /55, which one shall i get, Sigma / Tamron/ Tokina ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>anil, i've personally used the tamron 17-50 (original v.) and sigma 17-50 OS (current). i really, really liked the tamron, it was a very good lens. it's possible my copy was the. best. ever. it had that 'magic.' the sigma is pretty good but i'm not sure it's 'magical.'it's capable of reasonably sharp images, but the colors have a bit of a yellow cast. it's very contrasty too. i had to turn down the saturation a bit in my D90 (curiously, i have less issues with my d300s), and you may need to be careful with indoor lighting. OTOH, the tamron's colors were spot-on and contrasty out the box.</p>

<p>the main reason i got the sigma OS and not the tamron VC was because i'd heard the VC had slow AF and i thought the sigma HSM would be faster than a micromotor. i'm learning to like the sigma, and have even gotten used to the zoom ring which turns Canon-style. i still miss the tamron though (sniff!) and may get another copy just to compare them to head to head.</p>

<p>i think it kind of comes down to how much you need OS/VC. there's much less danger of camera shake with a 17-50 @50mm than with a 70-200 @ 200mm, so, depending on your shooting style, you may not need it at all. there's essentially one application for which stabilization is invaluable in a standard zoom: still subjects in low light. with moving subjects, forget a shutter below 1/40--motion blur means you can't shoot down to the theoretical limit of stabilization, which could be 1/15 or even 1/5 if you have really really good handholding technique. with still subjects, you can attain that slowness of shutter.</p>

<p>that makes the stabilized versions good in situations, say museums or churches, where flash is a no-no and light is low. for action or event-based shooting, stabilization is extraneous. for travel, stabilization is a definite plus, and for some PJ applications it can work as well. it's better to have stabilization than not, but i wouldn't say it's absolutely essential.</p>

<p>so, to answer your question, the 17-50 tamron non-VC is the safe bet overall. if you want a stabilized lens, it's a toss up between tamron and sigma's iterations--the sigma's possibly a little faster to AF, the tamron possibly has better colors.</p>

<p>i don't know much about the tokina 16-50/2.8, which i'm assuming you're referring to, other than it has the same build as tokina's 11-16 and 12-24, which is to say, pretty impressive. if you ding your lenses a lot, that might be worth checking out, although if build quality is at the top of your criteria, it might be worth it to pay a little more--well, actually, a lot more-- for the nikon 17-55, which has AF-S. this comes with the caveat that a) this made more sense when the used price of the 17-55 was only about $2-300 more than the tokina; and b) the 17-55 is way too big and clunky to be a good walkaround/street lens. it's made to impress wedding clients and guests (and possibly scare small children), not to allow you to stealthily and inobtrusively take candid shots in exotic locations. it also lacks VR.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I can't speak for the Tamron, but having owned the Nikons 50mm f1.8D and 35mm f1.8G I can tell you for sure the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 beats both. Your post brings up something I'll add. Unless you are shooting from a tripod, all you are testing with different lenses is your ability to handhold it. And, as Carl points out pretty much any modern lens will be equally sharp at f8. I don't worry about it. In general I've found that newer lenses have better coatings and better optical design. Just as cameras have changed over the past 25 years, so have lenses.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>