Tamron 28-75 f2.8 or prime 85 1.8D - Posted a question last week and got lots of great feedback -

[susannah]

<p>I would like some feedback on these two lenses which I realize are not actually similar - I had a question in the forum last week re lenses - giving away my D70 and original kit 18-70 lens. I am still finding great difficulty deciding which of the above lenses to actually purchase. The Tamron seems to have terrific reviews optically but lots of complaints about quality of the actual construction of the lens and comments about the softness of the image and bad "copies" of lenses which worries me and the reviews of the prime 85 1.8D are all exemplary and rave about it. I have the wide angle Tokina 12-24 f4 which I really enjoy, a 50 1.4D prime and simply can't make up my mind on whether to get another really good quality prime not only for portraits but interesting shots out and about and indoors and outdoors of young children in low light - or is it better to go for the Tamron with the greater flexibility of zoom, I know that on my D90 some people don't like the fairly narrow zoom capability, but I love my 50 prime so I don't think that will bother me - I'm much more interested in the quality of the lens and images. Thank you to anyone who can help me out here - at least I've narrowed it down to 2 lenses, although I did also wonder about the Nikon 24-85 2.8-4?? - so I suppose there is a third - but I think the Tamron 28-75 1.8 gets better reviews.<br>

Thanks for any help<br>

Sue</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>sue, i've had no problems with the tamron. it's not the most handsome lens, but the build isn't bad--certainly no worse than the 18-70. wouldnt say its soft at all--much sharper than the 18-70 and comparable to the 50/1.8 at wide apertures. if you can find the screw-drive version without the BiM, it actually has faster AF than the newer one.</p>

<p>for the use you describe, i'd probably go with the tamron. it pairs well with the 12-24, and does give you a lot of flexibility. i dont know about shooting kids indoors with an 85, might be too long, especially on DX.</p>

 

[brooks_lester]

<p>If you're going to be shooting candid rather than posed portraits on a DX body, the Tamron 28-75 is a good all around choice as it will yield a 44-112mm equivalent focal length. If your subject is moving around, the Tamron's zooming ability will come in handy, and at 44-112mm, you've got an almost classic full body focal length wide end (44mm isn't too far from 35mm) all the way to headshot at the long end of the lens, around a 105mm equivalent . The Tamron also has beautiful bokeh, so you won't be giving up any visual aesthetics vs. the Nikon 85mm f/1.8. I've used the Tamron in just this manner on my old DX body and it did very well for me. I've found that Tamron lenses tend to have a slight yellow cast. It doesn't bother many folks but the colors aren't as accurate as Nikon's lenses. That being said, this image was shot with a 28-75 Tamron and I really like the skin tones:</p>

<p>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3163/3016163626_7547e9cd87_b.jpg<br>

<a href=" title="Loved Little Person by SuperFriend, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3163/3016163626_7547e9cd87_b.jpg" width="1024" height="732" alt="Loved Little Person" /></a><br>

<br /> I shoot full frame (D700) and use a 105mm f/2 DC and 180mm IF ED lenses as long portrait primes, so I'm not biased against this type of lens, but for moving kids I feel a zoom can deliver more usable results.</p>

[phototransformations]

<p>I'm a big fan of the Tamron, and it is also one of only two lenses I bought with my D80 that did NOT have a problem (Nikkor 18-200 went back to Nikon twice, as did my Tokina 12-24, before they were working properly). It's a perfect portrait lens and a not bad walking-about lens, too. </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Shooting kids? A prime lens is a huge liability imho.</p>

<p>I'd get a zoom.</p>

[charles_hess2]

<p>I also have had great success with the Tamron. I haven't read any recent complaints about problems with quality control, so bad copies may be a thing of the past. The 85/1.8 is also a great lens, but on your D90, it may be a bit long for your needs. Good luck.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I think you need to study your needs better. I had a Nikkor 85mm f1.8 and liked it for certain images. I now use FX and have a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 for a travel lens. I purchased from my local camera store after testing the lenses. If you decide on the Tamron and need comfort then purchase from a good store so you can return if needed. I have had good service from B and H and Adorama. I also support my local camera store. Note that the Nikkor can flare badly if pointed into a light source. The Tamron has as good a build as the Nikkor and does not flare much if at all. The DoF of the Nikkor can be very handy as can the range of the Tamron. Apples and Oranges here.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>If it's very hard deciding then don't get anything ;-)<br>

Basically these lenses do different things. Did you like the using the 18-70? If you did, maybe the Tamron coudl be good for flexibility, although I would give a very serious consideration for the Nikon 16-85. since it does actually cover the wide angle part on your D90.<br>

On the other hand if you want top quality at 85 mm, then get the prime. Works in low light, AF is fast, can make a tight crop with it or just get that more narrow feel. The difference between the 85 and the 18-70 is very clear even in smaller prints and I would expect the prime to have a clear advantage over the Tamron zoom too. But the 85 doesn't zoom, so you need to decide what you value most.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>The DoF of the Nikkor can be very handy as can the range of the Tamron.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>actually, no. if this was the 85/1.4 we were talking about i'd say the merits would be more balanced, but i think the range trumps the extra 2/3rd stop easily here. if the OP had a d200 and didnt already have a 1.4 prime, the 1.8 aperture might make more sense. but with a d90 shooting iso 1600 and up is no problem, so you don't lose as much as it might seem with a 2.8 vs a 1.8.actually, i think you lose much more with a fixed 85 vs a 28-75.</p>

<p>i've never shot with the 85, but i have shot with the 28-75 a lot. when i got the 28-75 it basically obsoleted the 50/1.8 and the 18-70. if the 85 is anything like the 50/1.8, it will be soft until 2.8, and at 2.8 it will be about as sharp as the tamron wide open. the tamron is kind of like a portrait walkaround lens. its biggest weakness on DX is that its not wide enough on its own, but as i said before, you have that covered already with the 12-24.</p>

<p>sue, i'm just not sure you need the 85, especially if you already have the 50/1.4 for extreme low light. a prime is much more of a specialized lens than a zoom. the 85 is perhaps best used for portraits and concert photography. it's a bit long on DX--just enough for tight headshots--whereas the tamron's range covers the portrait sweetspot and also gives you extra wideness for backgrounds or getting two people in the frame. and if these kids are moving, you dont want a prime, especially one that long.</p>

<p> </p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>Eric, I should have written that the narrower DoF might be an important feature. Less will be in focus at f1.8 than at f2.8. A bit more than one full f stop.<br>

Bjorn has this to say about the Nikkor<br>

"This lens is unusual in having focusing carried out by the rear lens group, hence its RF (rear-focusing) designation. RF is a variant of the IF principle that combines features from the floating element approach (CRC) known from wide-angle designs. This helps give the lens good optical quality even up close. The 85/1.8 is a nice lens despite its awful cheap-looking plastic exterior, and capable of producing sharp and contrasty images from f/4 to f/11."<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html">http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html</a></p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<p>carl, i dont think anyone was disputing the fact that the 85 has good IQ stopped down. but i'm not sure it's better than the tamron in low-light; it may be worse. bjorn appears to be saying its not sharp until f/4, in which regard it has similar characteristics to the 50/1.8 (which actually starts to get sharp at f/3.2 in my experience). so in that regard, it's not sharper than the Tamron, which is a little soft but usable at 2.8, tack-sharp at f/4, and quite contrasty throughout focal and aperture range.</p>

<p>the thing is, if you have a fast prime that you need to stop down to the same f-stop or beyond to get the same IQ/sharpness you would get from a zoom wide open, it minimizes the need for a fast prime in the first place. and since the OP already has an even faster prime at a much more usable focal length (IMO), the DoF of the 85/1.8 is somewhat redundant. if anything, i would suggest the 35/1.8 or 30/1.4 rather than a much longer FL over what the OP already has, if i was recommending a prime (which i'm not).</p>

<p>i dont think there's any question that a 2.8 zoom covering the portrait range with a little extra room at the wide end would be better for the OP's stated purpose: shooting indoor/outdoor pictures of kids. and, short of the nikon 24-70, i dont think there's a better zoom out there in terms of price/performance than the 28-75, which is not only comparable to the 50/1.8, but the 28-70 in terms of IQ. as far as QC, i think it's just as possible to get a nikkor lemon as a third party lemon. the 28-75 also has modern coatings--it's a Di lens--so that means its less prone to flares and ghosting. and the 85 isn't any faster to focus. as for close-up, the 28-75 goes to 1:3 making it a semi-macro.</p>

<p>the bottom line to me is i just dont see the OP getting as much use out of the 85 as the 28-75, speaking as one who owns the 28-75 and has used it for four years on a d80 and d300. FWIW, i also have the 12-24 tokina, the 50/1.8, and the 30/1.4. i've thought about the 85/1.8, but i'd rather have the 1.4 for the bokeh.</p>

<p>OTOH, if we were talking about a lens for seated portraiture (with an FX camera) or concert photography (on DX), i'd say the relative merits might be more weighted more evenly towards the 85.</p>

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

[oskar_ojala]

<p>I think the whole IQ comparison of the 28-75/2.8 vs. the 85/1.8 would make more sense if someone had actually used both side by side. If we use photozone as a reference then the 85/1.8 has an edge both in MTF-50, distortion and CA.. But bear in mind that 75 mm is not the same as 85 mm.<br>

I do still think that the real question is which type of lens is more needed by the poster and that's something she can only answer for herself.</p>

[susannah]

<p>Thank you all so very much - and because I'm "down under" it really was terrific to receive all these comments first thing in my morning - after reading all of your responses, it helped to clarify what I should do and Eric thanks for the terrific photo you included - I braved the heat here today and went out and purchased the Tamron 28-75 and even the guy in the shop said congratulations you've made the best choice for your needs!! So, thank you for helping me come to that decision and if I can use it and take advantage of its 2.8 to do anything near that photo above, I'll be thrilled!!<br>

Many thanks,<br>

Sue</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>sue, good choice and thanks for the compliment. believe it or not, that shot is nothing special, just an example of the 28-75's bokeh. i included it in the post because i wanted to show the sharpness at 2.8--shooting wide open with that lens can be very gratifying, and as you can see, the bokeh is very smooth and non-jittery.</p>

<p>ps oskar--didnt mean to knock the 85/1.8. my apologies--the photozone MTF tests do show it's sharper than the tamron until f/4, and also better than the 50/1.8 until f/4.</p>

<p>my experience, however, is that in real-world shooting, lab tests can be misleading, and one has to think about the intended purpose of the lens.(also, as i said, the slight advantage of an 85 in extreme low-light would be more critical on a d200 or d80 than a d90 and is mitigated by the OP's owning the 50/1.4 already.) in this case, shooting an 85 indoors for fast-moving rugrats wouldnt be my first choice, and overall, the zoom seems to make more sense for the OP as it plugs a gap in her lens lineup, whereas the 85 is a quality prime, but seems extraneous in this situation.</p>

<p> </p>