Jump to content

D7100 w/ Tamron 28-75 f2.8--any examples?


peter_mcmonigle

Recommended Posts

<p>After being a dedicateed dfilm user for 10 years, I'm about to acquire a D7100 as my first DSLR. I decided to forego the kit lens and put the added savings toward some better glass, as my primary purpose will be sudio, model/glamour. I couldn't resist a used, in very good condition, Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di LD, which looks very clean and I've already tested on a store demo Nikon body.<br>

Is anyone using this combination and have some images to share?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have mixed feelings about this lens. It's f/2.8 but weighs and costs very little. You can get one for $200 or not much

more. Wide open its a bit soft and loses contrast, and you need to stop down to get a good image. So for an f/2.8 zoom

its image quality isn't so good, but as $200 FX zooms go it's fantastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used this lens on my D750 and I was pleasantly surprised with the lens. Not as good as my Nikon 27-70 f2.8 in my unscientific opinion. But a nice lens and good value. I was specifically pleasantly surprised with the snappy auto focus and the nice high contrast images. As discussed in this thread recently:http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dRlv

 

I'll try to dig up some images for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Wonderful image, Renee--thank you for posting.<br>

I had researched a number similar lenses from both Tamron and Sigma, and read feedback expressing similar pros/cons with each of them. I had just about decided on this model, anyway, and was preparing to order one new for about $499. I found the one I now have for $204 and it looks very clean, so even with a few weak areas I should hopefully consider it money well spent. And, my local specialty retailer just lowered the D7100 another hundred bucks. Patience pays off!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've been using a Tamron SP 28-75 f/2.8 on a D800 for years. The wide open softness mentioned is no worse than you get with any f/2.8 high-quality zoom, and is to be expected. At mid-zoom focal lengths and stopped down a couple of stops the IQ can compete with that from a 55mm MF Micro-Nikkor - in other words excellent! Flare resistance and contrast are also very good. Its only shortcoming is a little softness at the longest zoom setting, but it's only soft in comparison to the biting sharpness it delivers at shorter focal lengths.</p>

<p>The D7100 has a slightly higher pixel density than a D800, but to offset that you'll only be using the central portion of the image circle where sharpness is greatest. In short, I wouldn't worry about that lens not doing justice to your new camera. It'll be a lot better than any of Nikon's kit lnses as supplied with a D7100.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've been using that lens on digital and film bodies for years though not the 7100. It's an excellent lens especially at that price point and it's one I take everywhere. You'll get very good results with it. As far as it not being wide enough on DX well, it all depends on what you need. I have wider glass but this one still does most of what I need it to do.<br /><br />Rick H.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>my primary purpose will be sudio, model/glamour.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>in that case, the 1.5x crop works in your favor as the zoom is now long enough for headshots. i've had one for years, it's fine for DX if you're not using it as a walkaround lens; i found that range was also great for shooting live music. i would say it's less sharp than the nikon 24-70 @2.8, but not totally "soft." actually a fairly contrasty lens. at that price you can't lose.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Right now I'm doing some comparisons - I don't have a D7100, this is on my D750. Between the Tamron 28-75/2.8, Nikon 24-85 VR, Sigma A 24-105, Tokina 70-200 f/4 and (just to keep it interesting) Fuji 18-135, all trying to take roughly the same shots at as close to f/4 as the lens will handle the Tamron is a lot less sharp than the others. The Sigma is a bit better than the Tamron, the Nikon is noticeably better than the Sigma, and Fuji and Tokina run away with it.</p>

<p>These are actually all good lenses, but the Tamron (and this is the third one of this lens I've owned and used on FX digital and they're all similar) isn't on a level where I'd call the image quality excellent. It's an excellent lens because of value. You can't find anything else this good in a $200 zoom, and it also has close focus and f/2.8 as an option.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p> Between the Tamron 28-75/2.8, Nikon 24-85 VR, Sigma A 24-105, Tokina 70-200 f/4 and (just to keep it interesting) Fuji 18-135, all trying to take roughly the same shots at as close to f/4 as the lens will handle the Tamron is a lot less sharp than the others. The Sigma is a bit better than the Tamron, the Nikon is noticeably better than the Sigma, and Fuji and Tokina run away with it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this is interesting because i'm not aware of any lab test where the nikon 24-85 exceeded the sigma 24-105 for IQ. <a href="http://www.lenstip.com/389.4-Lens_review-Sigma_A_24-105_mm_f_4_DG_OS_HSM_Image_resolution.html">lenstip </a>reviews them both, and finds the nikon only above-average in the frame center at 24mm and much worse at the long end, while the sigma is very good to excellent all the way out to 105mm. in the case of the tamron 28-75, it's such a venerable lens, all the reviews i found were on ancient bodies like the D200 and Canon 20D. still, it got rave reviews at the time, with photozone saying it had some of the highest MTF figures to date, and bob atkins noting it was sharper than the canon 50/1.8. in my experience, it was the first 2.8 zoom i owned, and one i still have. it compared favorably to the nikon 50/1.8 AF-D at comparable apertures and was capable of acceptable IQ at 2.8 and sharp and contrasty from f/4-f/8. it's bokeh is sometimes described as harsh but i found it a tad smoother than the nikon 24-70/2.8 AF-S.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Eric has hit the nail on the head. <br>

I have one of those lenses and for the money it can't be beat. I shoot mine at F2/8 ALMOST all the time.<br>

Here are two samples.<br>

Love birds

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jgredline/20398258613/in/dateposted-public/<br>

Those are on a D750, but I was using that very lens this past weekend on my D7100. I will pull some images and post them up.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><img src="/bboard/<a%20data-flickr-embed="true"%20%20href="https:/www.flickr.com/photos/jgredline/20398258613/in/dateposted-public/"%20title="Simply%20Precious"><img%20src="https:/farm1.staticflickr.com/640/20398258613_30baf6e7de_b.jpg"%20width="1024"%20height="716"%20alt="Simply%20Precious"></a><script%20async%20src="/embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js"%20charset="utf-8"></script>" alt="" /></p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...