advertisement


Tamron Lenses

garyi

garyi

leave blank
I am signed up to the nikon forums now so will generally leave you all alone, never the less you input is still highly valued!

I want a quality lens for medium zoom use. So have been looking at three lenses in particular:

A tamron 28-105 f2.8 SP lens.

A nikon 35-70mm f2.8 AFD lens

A Tokina 28-70 f2.8 Pro SV


The tamron is coming in at the most expensive, but offers the best range. The Tokina would appear to be the best value but the nikon is supposed to be very well regarded, infact its still in production today even though its getting on a bit. But it has a very limited focal range, it was summed up quite well in that I could just use my 50mm prime and move forward or back 40% for that range. Fair point.

Still I would like a decent out and about zoom lens, to bring on par with my new nice tele zoom, but alas cannot stretch to the nikkor AFS 28-70mm

So anyway, is the Tamron anygood? I notice as soon as Nikkon release a certain lens, both sigma and tamron come out a week later with the same focal range, you can;t help but think they are all coming out the same factory anyhow.
 
Gary, I picked up a Sigma 28-105 2.8 Aspherical for just such use (£40 on eBay), and it's a handy focal range. Some seem to comment that it's a bit soft, but I've had fairly good results with it. Will post a couple of pics later.
 
Gary,

I haven't used the Tamron or Tokina lens, so I can't offer any specific advice, but as a rule you should avoid zooms that cover a really wide range.

More often than not, the greater the range, the greater the optical aberrations (vignetting and chromatic -- chromatic being the killer with digital) and distortion (barrel, pincushion, wavy mustache). Aberrations and distortion also tend to be more pronounced in lenses that cover both wide and tele focal lengths and ones that cover the ultrawide focal lengths. Lots of expensive engineering and manufacturing are needed to make a good zoom, so the best ones tend to be very pricey.

Keep in mind that given the 1.5x crop of your sensor relative to 35mm film, zooms that start at 28mm or 35mm will not be very wide, so if you want to do proper wideangle photography you should be looking at lenses that are at least 18mm at the short end.

Instead of the lenses you listed, have you considered the 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 DX Nikkor zoom? It's quite a bit better than the kit lens that comes with the D50 and covers the focal lengths you're most likely to use.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0401/04012804nikon18-70dx.asp

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=227

http://www.bythom.com/1870lens.htm

Joe

P.S. I have tried the 35-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor and while it is a good zoom I agree that a 50 you're willing to move back and forth would be about as effective, and since you already have a 55mm Micro-Nikkor I really don't see the point in that zoom.
 
Thanks Joe, I have been looking at that lens, and I know how this sounds but they are very, well plastic arn't they?

Its snobbish I know, but if I am going to spend upto £400 I really want it to be a solid bit of kit.

However I think Jessops stock that lens so I might well go and have a gander this afternoon.
 
I've never used any Tamron lenses so can't comment directly, but have had bad (reliability) experiences with Sigma lenses on Canon EOS bodies. One (a 28-70/2.8EX) died whilst I was in Greece, leaving me stuck with only a Canon 50/1.8 (a great little lens). Another had problems with the front element, and I had one whose internal elements became a bit fogged through no fault of my own. So, no more Sigma for me...!!
 
Tamron lenses have a pretty good reputation, or at least they did when 20 or so years ago I had a Mamiya ZM 35mm SLR and almost the only lenses I could get for it (apart from the megabucks Mamiyas) were Tamrons because they had their "Adaptall2" system whereby their lenses could be made to fit any mount system with an adapter, and they made a Mamyia ZE adapter.

btw, I still have the Mamiya. It's one of these:
ZM.jpg


...in case anyone's interested....
 
igary.

you are breaking just about every rule here. let me repeat: never use a zoom lens, never use a 3rd party lens (unless it's german), never use a lens without an aperture ring, never use an autofucos lens, never use a plastic lens, never use a zoom lens, never use a zoom lens.

vuk.
 
There you go Gary, vuk has spoken. You should have taken up painting, no danger of technology getting the way of the art :rolleyes:
 
Nothing wrong with zoom lenses; nothing wrong with non-propriety lenses; nothing wrong with non-german lenses; nothing wrong with ignoring vuk; or joe; or me.

It is photography; not religion.
 
Indeed, I think one day Vuk will understand I am not ever going to be a professional I really just want two decent zooms to cover a fair range and a couple of primes. I am nearly there.

I went to look in Jessops today, the nikons feel cheap. They also paint them in that plastic gold text which makes them look bling cheap. I can't get past that.

The sigma was a POS. It was a 28-70mm f2.8 The zoom ring was a 1.5cm thick so you could barely get one finger on it, and the focus ring was 4cm thick, the thing was incredibly stiff and difficult to use and whats more had a ruddy great lump of dirt inside the back lenses, and this had never been out the box.

My first and last experience with them perhaps.
 
I have used Tamron lenses in the past. I had a 28, 70-150 and a 500 mirror and they all did exactly what it said on the tin. Never had any problems with them and at that time (20 odd years ago) held there price well secondhand. No idea how the modern day offerings stack up.

The last SLR I had was a Nikon 601 with, I think, a Nikon 35-105 and it took fantastic pictures.
 
The general consensus for the tamron I mentioned is not good so I will leave it.

I realy want a 28-70mm afs now haha.

Apparently its called NLL, nikon lens lust.
 
Cav -- You were making sense until you got to the ignore Joe part.

Gary -- The 18-70mm Nikkor DX does look a bit blingy, but it's not like you'd be mounting it on a classic camera like the FM-3A, where it would look out of place.

Before you buy more glass I think you should decide what it is you want to photograph and buy lenses to that end. Two or three good lenses ought to be enough for anyone, apart from people who just buy glass just to have or those with atypical photographic requirements -- e.g., sports photographers, nature photographers, architectural photographers, etc.

I'd be happy to suggest some good prime Nikkors or [shock, horror] a zoom or two that would likely fit the bit, but the problem is that you're all over the map. For what it's worth, I think *you*, not Vuk, would be best served with two zooms, say a 18-70 and a 80-200, along with one fast prime (35 f/2 or 50 f/1.8) for available light stuff. If you're feeling really flush, substitute the 18-70mm f/3.5-f/4.5 for the 17-55mm f/2.8.

Joe
 
What about Matthews one (assuming he is try the subtle sell)

Thanks Joe, I am going to look at the ones you mention.

So what I want as my final set, this will be it for defo, is the 80-200mm f2.8 ed, the 35mm and 50mm primes, the 55mm macro and finally this other zoom. This other zoom could be the most important and the only one I need, for family gatherings etc I am determined not to turn in with a bag full of lenses (especially German manual focus ones from the 1940s)
 
20-35mm f2.8d AF is in my price range. With the 50mm in between could be possible I suppose.

I can pick up an ex demo 18-70mm AFS for £279 brand new but no box.
 
Gary,

If you want just one zoom for general-purpose photography and don't want to carry a behemoth, get the 18-70. It's not shite, it's not stellar, but it is very good and more than adequate for family shots. If you're feeling flush, the 17-55 f/2.8 is better and faster, but you're paying a lot more for a bit of sharpness and an additional stop's worth of speed.

You may also want to check Bjørn's site for other lenses you're considering --

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#top1

Bjørn is the biggest Nikkor nut on earth and owns and has extensively tested almost every Nikkor ever made. For what it's worth, I've found his reviews to be spot on -- every lens he says is good I've found to be good and every lens he says is crap I've found to be crap.

Ratings go from 1 to 5. Avoid anything rated 3 or below. By 3.5 the lens in question is good, by 4 the lens is very good, and by 5 the lens is stellar -- at least relative to other name-brand Japanese lenses, not ridiculously expensive German glass, which on Bjørn's scale would rate at least 12.7.

Matthew's lens is good choice as a general-purpose lens for film cameras, but I wouldn't recommend it on a digital camera because its equivalent focal lengths are atypical -- 35-128mm equivalent angle of view relative to 35mm.

Joe
 
Joe I have read Beyronefyronfyorns website from end to end. And am making my way through the uber complicated mir website haha.

The 17-55 is more expensive second hand the the 24-70mm so I won't be going there.
 
Gary,

Then the 18-70 is the one to look at -- or stick with the D50 kit lens for now. The much more important thing is to immerse yourself in good photography, shoot lots and edit your work ruthlessly.

Joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top