Nikon or Tamron lens for D600?

<p>I will likely bite the bullet and get a D600 for Christmas and my birthday which are coming up. I've been looking at two FX zoom lenses, the "kit" Nikon 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR and the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 SP XR Di LR IF (NOT the more expensive 24-70 Tamron with VC). I've read good reviews about both. What I like about the Nikon is the larger zoom range, the VR, the light weathersealing, and the fact it's a Nikon. The Tamron has the advantage of a constant f/2.8 aperture. My use is pretty general purpose -- everything from family events to travel. Sharpness is very important to me, but so is budget, so I don't want to spend more (at least not right now).</p>

<p>Has anyone had experience with both? What are your recommendations? I already have a Nikon 50mm AF f/1.4 D, and want a zoom centered around 50 mm.</p>

<p>Thanks so much!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've lately been trying out both on a D800. The Tamron is an older one with screwdriver AF. To be quite honest it's very difficult to tell the difference when shot at similar apertures. The lenses are not far apart in size and weight. Build quality is very similar. (Both are "good for an amateur lens, not at the level of a pro Nikkor" level.) You wouldn't be going wrong with either.</p>

<p>For the Tamron: It edges the Nikon in bokeh smoothness, and of course it has larger apertures, and those apertures are usable. For an f/2.8 lens it is quite compact and light weight. It uses 67mm filters, which are shared by more lenses I've owned than the Nikon's 72mm filters. You can find used ones at very low prices - I got mine for $250 when somebody offered it on another web forum. This older version has an aperture ring and can be used on older film cameras.</p>

<p>For the Nikon: It's a bit shorter that the Tamron. It has VR, which does give it advantages in sharpness at the same aperture when you're not working with very fast shutter speeds. It has AF-S. It has more zoom range. (The 24 end is probably more important than the 85 end, particularly for the travel shooting.)</p>

<p>I think if I were choosing one or the other I'd take the Tamron, but that's really a personal preference thing. I could see the Nikon being a better choice for you because of the wide end.</p>

<p>i've had the tamron for six years, it's a very good lens, especially for the price. FWIW, the optics are just a hair below the nikon 24-70 AF-S, with sharpness at 2.8 being the most noticeable difference. the Nikon 24-70 isn't a great walkaround lens, however, which is why i kept both. i was surprised to see it did so well in DxO Mark's lens ratings. i think this really comes down to constant 2.8 or VR. 10mm in focal length at the wide end wouldn't be enough for me to worry about.</p>

<p>I shot with both lenses before and you really can't tell the difference much optically. My beliefs always has been if both lenses have similar results I will always go with Nikon. Nikon just have better resale value, QC and warranty.</p>

<p>FYI I'm using a poor man's Nikon 28-70 3.5-4.5 on my D600 and am pleased with the results. Well made for an amateur lens and very compact. (52mm filters) Only drawback for me is the screwdriver AF but in daylight it's plenty quick. Look around and see this lens gets good ratings. A real sleeper. Even if you want or need a pro 2.8 zoom picking up the little 28-70 for at hundred bucks or less will give you a versatile, light weight option. </p>

<p>You might consider an used Nikon 28-70mm f2.8, if you find a good unit.</p>

<p>I've used the Tamron 28-75 (BIM version) on a D700 for a couple of years now with no complaints, and was expecting to see some shortcomings when I got the D800 - not so! I'm very pleasantly surprised by the quality got from this lens at 36Mp, so on the 24Mp D600 you should be absolutely fine. I was initially persuaded by the affordability, compact size and weight of the lens, but the excellent image quality came as an added bonus.</p>

<p>Below is one of the tests I did when I first got the D800 to see exactly what it could do. This was with the Tamron 28-75 set to 36mm and f/4. The far corners lag behind a bit until around f/5.6, but there's nothing to complain about in comparison with other lenses, even primes.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon just have better resale value, QC and warranty.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>actually, tamron has the better warranty 6 years instead of 5). also, WRT to resale value, this isn't unilaterally true. some nikkors, like the 17-55 resale for as low as 50% of their current new price. as for QC, i think this is somewhat of a myth that OEM lenses have less issues than 3rd party glass. the issues that do get reported tend to be blown out of proportion on the internet. what's more likely is that some older 3rd party lenses may have compatibility issues with some newer bodies. but if you look at Rodeo Joe's post, it seems like the 28-75 does just fine on a d800. also, it's easier for a VR or an AF-S lens to get misaligned over time than a screw-drive lens; so, if there are any QC issues, you'll likely know that right away.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My beliefs always has been if both lenses have similar results I will always go with Nikon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i dont really understand this philosophy, which seems somewhat counter-intuitive, since 3rd party glass is almost always less expensive. it two lenses have similar optical performance, but one is 1/3rd to 1/2 less expensive, why pick the more expensive lens? in the case of the 28-75,it's said to be about equal to the 28-70, both of which are not as good as the 24-70. as an owner of both the 24-70 and the 28-75, i can tell you the $400 tamron holds up well against a lens which currently goes for $1800, with focus speed and build quality being the major dings against it. the nikon is good, but the optical performance isn't close to being 4x as good. and, the tamron can be had used for as little as $250 for the screw-drive version, which is a super deal IMO.</p>

<p>I have the D600 bought it with the 24-85 I was not happy at all with it,sold it,use the new AFS Nikon Gold ring lenses,yes they cost more,but they will hold there value way better than any Tamron or Sigma..........Ever will.........</p>

<p>That Nikkor lenses hold a higher percentage of their cost isn't the issue. Firstly, I really don't know why anyone would buy something with a view to its eventual sale. If it performs as you expect, then surely you keep using it? And if it's a business cost you can write its depreciation off against tax.</p>

<p>Secondly, the difference between cost and resale value should be considered in absolute monetary terms, and not as a percentage of the initial price. For example you buy a Tamron lens at $400, and sell it some time later for $200. That's a "loss" of only $200. However, if you'd paid $1800 for a Nikkor and managed to find an eventual buyer at $1200, your loss would still be $600, making the cost of ownership 3 times that of the Tamron.</p>

<p>Resale value doesn't have to be a problem. If you buy either lens used or at a discount when buying with a camera, then later decide you don't want it and want to sell it, you won't lose money. The only way to really lose money on resale is to damage the item or buy something new that's properly expensive.</p>

<p>I have been using the Tamron with my D700 for a few years without issue. I prefer "fast" zooms or better yet faster f2 primes.</p>

<p>Thank you everyone for your inputs. I finally flipped a coin (well, actually I didn't) and decided to go with the Nikon. What decided it was the wider zoom range and the VR. Judging from the feedback I've received and the reviews I've read, I don't think either choice would be a bad one. Since it'll be a combination birthday (near Xmas) and a Christmas present, I won't be able to try the lens or the camera until then. Likely I'll post some shots on the Wednesday forum, so keep a lookout after the holidays.</p>

<p>Happy Thanksgiving to all!</p>