Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 versus Nikon 24-70mm 2.8

[wade_thompson]

<p>I have several Nikon lenses and a couple of Tamron's.<br>

I love the sharpness of my Nikkor 80-200mm 2.8 and my other Nikon lenses BUT...<br>

I am not happy with my Tamron 28-75 2.8 It does not have the sharpness the Nikkor 80-200 has...and so I am wondering if you think it is worth the money for me to sell my Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 and buy the Nikkor 24-70 2.8?<br>

That's a lot of money and I want to make the switch only if it is worth it.</p>

<p>Anyone had both lenses and can quantitatively compare the two?</p>

<p> </p>

[ronni]

<p>Wade,<br>

I have Tamron 28-75 for more than 4 years, love it.It sharp lens (if you get a good copy) but color little bit greenish.<br>

I tried Nikon 24-70 f2.8,give better color and sharpnes, but it's 4 times price compare to Tamron.<br>

If budget is not issue for you go to Nikon 24-70 f2.8, you will not regret.<br>

Happy shopping...:)</p>

<p>~ronni~</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Hi Wade,<br>

Nikon 24-70 is a stellar lense but you are the first guy speaking so badly about Tamron 28-75. In general people are happy with this very inexpensive lens... maybe you get a bad copy. What camera do you use?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>in my experience the 28-75 is very sharp, except at maybe f/2.8, where it's merely acceptable. no doubt in a head-to-head comparison the nikkor would win, but i'm not sure it would win by enough to make it worth the significant added cost. maybe you can post some pics so we can see what you're talking about.</p>

[wade_thompson]

<p>I may have gotten a bad copy.</p>

<p>My images are just not very sharp and all appear almost like they are a slightly overexposed. (Yes, I know that is not possible... but that's about the only way I can attempt to explain the "look" that I see. <br />I'll take some photos of the same scene, one with the Tamron and another at the same aperture on my 50mm f1.4 Nikon prime and post them here later and let you guys take a look for yourself and see what you think.<br />'</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>My Tamron 28-75 2.8 is sharp enough on my D80</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>wade, is that lens new? tamron has, like,a 6-year warranty. also, what body are you using it on? i have used the 28-75 on a d80 and d300 with about the same results.</p>

[wade_thompson]

<p>I bought the lens used on ebay about 6 months ago. I use it on a D300 so it should work just as well as my others.</p>

[ArthurRichardson]

<p>Wade, on the D300 go for the 17-55 it's the standard normal zoom focal lenght on a DX body and will save you a lot of cash as well. Many good used copies are available, so give it a try.</p>

[ronni]

<p>Tamron has bad QC.<br />Just share my experienced when bought 28-75 f2.8 for my Canon 20D , 6 years ago.<br />I asked the Tamron salesman to provide me 5 (five) Tamron 28-75mm for test ; sharpness and back focus. And display teast result on PC not on camera LCD<br />Finally I choose lens no 2, after doing shoot test on a Newspaper (for sharpness) and ruler (i bring this thing from home..:) for back/font. focus test.<br />Tamron 28-75 very good for protrait, I skip 17-50.<br /><br />focal leght 75mm, f2.8 on Canon 20D <br /><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/47/114957741_8e22c0cd4b.jpg" alt="" width="333" height="500" /><br /><br><br>

I f you get a good copy, Tamron will produce very good result; especially for type: 17-50f2.8, 28-75 f2.8, 90 f2.8macro, 70-200 f2.8.</p>

<p> </p>

[wade_thompson]

<p>Here is a photo Nikkor 50mm f2.8 focused on the protruding brick just to the right of the gray downward gutter at the center of the frame... the second is the same set up with the 28-75mm Tamron<br>

<br /><img src="http://www.brinkleys.org/users/tsl/Files/tamron%20vs%20nikon%2050mm%202.8%20003.jpg" alt="" width="665" height="392" /><img src="http://www.brinkleys.org/users/tsl/Files/tamron%20vs%20nikon%2050mm%202.8%20004.jpg" alt="" width="666" height="430" /></p>

[george_berney]

<p>If you don't mind the older lenses, like the 80-200 2.8, why don't you try a copy of the Nikon 35-70 2.8? It might not go wide enough for you, but it can be had used for around $340. If it didn't suit your purposes, you could sell it without losing any money on it.</p>

<p>It is the cheapest way into what used to be Pro Glass. The 35-70, your 80-200, and maybe pick up the Sigma 10-20 or something similiar and you would have a very good kit, and you could afford all of that for less than you would pay for the 24-70.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>so wade, you are shooting a 50mm prime stopped down to 2.8 and comparing it to a zoom wide open? i'm not sure that's a fair comparison. try shooting the 50 at 2.8 vs the tamron at f/4.</p>

<p>btw, here's a 28-75 shot @ 2.8...</p><div></div>

[wade_thompson]

<p>yes, 50mm stopped down to 2.8, so that it is apples to apples on the tamron.</p>

<p>do you see a difference in the sharpness?</p>

[dzeanah]

<p>What you're missing is that essentially every lens performs better when stopped down a couple/few apertures than when shot wide open. Even if you're shooting at the same aperture you can expect better performance out of the lens that's stopped down than from the one that's wide open.<br>

Plus, well, you're comparing a zoom to a prime lens. And 50mm prime lenses are pretty solid optically as a general rule, even the cheap ones.<br>

No, I don't have any experience with the Tamron, but I'm interested in the discussion.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>wade, like derek said, you're missing the point. most lenses reach maximum sharpness two clicks from wide open. in your case, the 50mm is stopped down to 2.8 and the tamron is wide open @ 2.8. so expecting comparable sharpness is unrealistic.</p>

<p>that said, i detect minute differences in your pics, but not much. the center sharpness is about the same. the 50 is definitely contrastier, but not by that much. the OoF areas are very close as well. the 50 appears to show a little more detail in the borders, but i think that's just contrast. you'd have to look at a crop to really tell. if you look at the OoF areas on the left-hand side, though, they're about the same. overall, i'd say that's a pretty decent showing for the 28-75 and about what i'd expect from the 50.</p>

<p>again, for a fairer comparison you'd have to shoot the same scene at the same settings with the 50 @2.8 and the tammy @f/4. the 50 is probably always going to have more contrast unless you stop down past 5.6, but the 28-75 didnt get its rep for IQ from being a softie. like i said, that's pretty good performance for a zoom wide open. my copy perks up at f/4, but i dont hesitate to use it at 2.8.</p>

<p>also, your photo isn't perhaps the best example. you have a flat brick focal point with foreground bokeh. kinda 'eh.' try something like my shot--a nice central foreground image with background bokeh. that should illustrate the tamron's capabilities at wide apertures. btw, i have a 50/1.8 as well as the 28-75. i've only used them side-by-side once, for an event i was shooting inside Alcatraz prison. the lighting conditions were miserable and at that time i only had my d80. i shot the 50 at 2.8 and the tamron wide open. i couldnt tell which was which afterwards.</p>

<p> </p>

[wade_thompson]

<p>all very good suggestions, but I think we are getting off track with my original question.<br>

the problem is that in the poorly lit gyms I use the 28-75mm 2.8 in, I have to have the aerture wide open shooting ISO 1600+ to get stop the action, particualrly in volleyball....so my question was more of a comparison at f2.8 between the Nikon 24-70 and the Tamron 28-75.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>wade, you should have mentioned that upfront--this is the first you mentioned of specific shooting conditions.</p>

<p>the 24-70 might be a bit sharper at 2.8--it's reportedly sharper than the 28-70 it replaced, which is reportedly comparable to the 28-75--but that may not completely solve your problem, since it appears you need either a faster lens (and there are no zooms faster than 2.8) or a camera with better low-light ability than the d300 (which is pretty good at 1600 IMO). i can tell you that the tamron 17-50 is a hair sharper than the 28-75 at 2.8, and you can check photozone for MTF comparisons between the 28-75 and 24-70.</p>

<p> </p>

[r._malecki]

<p>I have many Tamron lenses and love each one of them. I have found that some are even sharper than Nikon's. I have to agree that the 24-70 F2.8 Nikon lens is a stellar lens. I use it quite often. I would guess that if your Tamron lens is not sharp..............send it back. You have a 6 yr. warranty. I bought a Nikon F2.8 70-300VR lens a few years ago and it did not focus where I was shooting. I was shooting swimmers and the focus was sharp beyond the swimmer. I took it back to the dealer and they tried to tell me it was fine. I had another colleague check it out and they agreed with me. I sent it back to Nikon and they agreed and replaced it. So don't delay in sending this back first before you spend the extra money. Also it would help to send photos back using that lens and another that is sharper. That's what I did so they could physically see it. A computer monitor is not always accurate in an instance like this. Good Luck.</p>

[scott_gardner1]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5015995">R. Malecki</a> , suggested:<br>

I would guess that if your Tamron lens is not sharp..............send it back. You have a 6 yr. warranty.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmmm . . . IME, warranty is honored only when a copy of the original store receipt is presented. If Tamron does the service w/o it, please let us know.</p>

<p>BTW, I had a Tamron 28-75 a few years back and regret selling it; splendid performer and better than my Canon 28-70 'L' at f/2.8!</p>