Which One is Better: Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8 or Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8?

[albertdarmali]

<p>If it is to be used for full frame DSLR like D700, which one do you think will perform better? Just simply in terms of operational (eg. built, mechanism) and picture quality?<br>

I don't really care either way about the extra reach on the wide and tele side, but more interested in terms of picture quality, feel, and how the lens operate with the camera.</p>

<p>Anyone experienced both before? I think you can get either one of these two at almost the same price (new Tamron will cost you as much as the second hand Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8), so it is a bit difficult to decide.</p>

[syed]

<p>I don't have the Tamron but can vote for the 35-70 which I use on a full frame body. Mine is the old non-D version, and has been a workhorse lens for me for that focal length range. Great sharpness, contrast, bokeh, and saturation. You can't fault the build quality; it's an all metal design with a convenient close focus "macro" mode at the 35mm end.<br>

Image quality-wise you will probably get good results with either the Tamron or the 35-70, but for sheer build quality the older Nikkors are simply great to have. I do still shoot with the old holy grail of 20-35, 35-70, and 80-200 (push pull version), no doubt some of the very best lenses Nikon has ever manufactured. Yes, sharpness-wise the new pro lenses put these to shame, but they get the job done day after day, year after year, without any issues.</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>"I don't really care either way about the extra reach on the wide and tele side, more interested in terms of picture quality, feel, and how the lens operate with the camera."</p>

<p>Should have get the new 50/1.4 then :-)</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I have the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 with motor. It is light and sharp at 28mm. It is not prone to flair or ghosting. It is not push pull. It is new. Those are the reasons I purchased it over the Nikkor for use with a D700. I have read that the Nikkor does not age well and I wanted something to use for a long time that is light enough to carry for many miles possibly shooting into light. I think the Nikkor can be a very good lens also, which I also considered. The newer Nikkor's are heavier than I want to haul around. As Tommy Lee mentioned if range is not a concern than a 50mm may be a better choice. I also use primes often.</p>

[benjaminm]

<p>Albert said that he doesn't care about the extra reach of Tamron vs. Nikkor (28 vs. 35 and 75 vs. 70mm). Tamron has problems with QC. You can get an excellent copy but also a very bad one (in my case). I have no experience with 35-70 Nikkor, but in my opinion it isn't wide enough for a standard zoom lens. I would test a Tamron.</p>

[john_stockdale2]

<p>"I have read that the Nikkor does not age well....."</p>

<p>As we speak, my 35-70/2.8 is being repaired. I have owned dozens of Nikon lenses over the years and this is the first time anything has gone wrong with one. It was in mint condition but used when I bought it. Lately it has become cloudy. An element is on order to replace the one that has developed a surface imperfection. I have read of this happening before. The repair will cost less than one on the second hand market, but maybe not a lot less.</p>

<p>I'm having it repaired because I like it so much. For informal gatherings it has a good enough zoom range for me, and f2.8 is necessary for my style of shooting.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>That is what I have read about, the cloudy issue. I have many older Nikkor primes, so far they are serving me well. When I purchased my Tamron I went to my local store with my camera and tested it before I took it home. I had read good things about it but wanted to make sure I got a good one.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the tamron 28-75 is one of their best lenses. from an IQ standpoint, i havent seen anything which suggests the nikkor is better optically. build quality-wise, the nikkor has sturdier construction but the tammy is tougher than it looks. mine--the non-motor version--took a bunch of dings and at least two cracked filters from hard (nightclubclub shooting) use over 3 years. finally the filter thread came a little loose but the lens still works, focuses, etc. i'll probably get it fixed so i've retired it from active duty for the time being (i missed it last week when i was shooting a street fair with a 12-24 and the 17-50 as my other lens on the 2nd body). luckily tamron has a 6 year warranty. the other thing is, i dont know about push-pull zoom in these times. it seems a bit archaic. that, and the less-wide FL, kept me from buying the 35-70 the first time around. offhand, i'd buy new over used since there's no guarantee the 35-70 wont have developed a defect, with the 28-75 you get a warranty, and there's not really a huge optical difference. in fact, the tamron may be sharper.</p>

[albertdarmali]

<p>Yeah I totally forgot about this haze problem that some users have encountered. I think the safest bet is just to get a new Tamron I guess.</p>

[tony_vasquez1]

<p>The only problem I know of with Tamron lens is in Sports photography. They are a little slower focusing than Nikon lens. I sometimes work next to a young guy at events using Tamron lens on his Nikon because he can't afford Nikon lens and he admitts to his lens being a little slow especially at night.</p>

[albertdarmali]

<p>AF speed is the least of my worry because I mainly use MF, so AF regardless how slow it is, it's a luxury to me, haha..</p>

[gregory_isaacs]

<p>"in fact, the tamron may be sharper."</p>

<p>The 35-70 2.8 Nikkor is one of Nikon's sharpest zooms ever so I highly doubt this. If you're worried about haze it takes about 5 seconds to ascertain whether or not your potential sample has a problem.</p>