Tamron 28-75/2.8 AF XR Di

Does anyone have experience with the Tamron 28-75/2.8 AF XR Di and

can comment on sharpness, chromatic aberration and distortion ON

FILM? Any comparision with the expensive Nikkor 28-70/2.8 would be

perfect. Thanks in advance.

I use the lens on F100s. The lens is sharper than the Nikon 28-105/3.5-4.5 (which has been my main lens for 5 years). Useable at 2.8 (I shoot weddings with it.) Very sharp, even compared to the 85/1.8, stopped down a stop. The bokeh at the long end is very nice. I haven't noticed any CA. It does have noticable barrel distortion at the wide end and some pin cusion distortion at the long end when shooting something like a brick wall. I haven't seen the distortion in any of my wedding shots. You might if you shoot architecture.

 

I suspect that the Nikkor is better optically, mechanically and has quieter AF with AFS, but for me the price difference outweighted the quality difference. Particularly since digital may be in my future and the 17-55/2.8 is the right lens for that.

It works. Only 'slight' downside is the non-Nikon anything filter size: 67mm.

 

 

 

I used one for many images needed in a city employee 'slide' show (lots of .jpg files) at last year's Christmas party. No one noticed a Nikkor lens was not used.

Umit,

 

I have one that I am getting ready to sell. Not because it isn't a good lens, but because my

other Zooms are all Nikkors now and I like for them to all operate the same

way...confusing when I switch lenses.

 

I shoot Film & Digital with it. The only complaint I have had is that it feels a bit cheap. Of

course that means it is also lightweight.

 

Let me know if you are intersted.

 

jmp

Umit, I notice that you specifically listed the "Di" version. I could be mistaken, but I'm sure that the optical formula and basic mechanics of this version are identicle to the recently-discontinued non-Di version. As far as I'm aware, the only changes are cosmetic and improved coatings. Therefore, the above answers should be perfectly applicable to your query. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Not that this is much, but I've used the Canon version on film and have been happy. Mostly Porta 160 and 400. This lense has been reported by some as not reporting true color. At the last event I shot with film a very mixed light environ and got great color and flesh tones.

 

Honestly, I think those reports are from people shooting DSLR - non calibrated wb in jpg format, which ain't so good in the Digi world.

 

For the price it's a rockin optic! No idea about the Nikon lense.

Thanks so far guys. I asked the Di version because it is the one sold new, I didn't know there was a non Di version.

Nice lens. I like it. And the short throw makes autofocusing quicker than you'd expect from a non-afs lens.<p>

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3022843-md.jpg"></center>