1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Tamron 24-75 vs Nikon 35-70 f/2.8

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by sinigang619, Jul 14, 2008.

  1. sinigang619

    sinigang619

    26
    Aug 8, 2007
    San Diego
    I've recently received the Nikon 35-70 f/2.8 which I bought off eBay after owning the Tamron 24-75 f/2.8 for about 7-8 months. I've heard so many good things about the 35-70 that I decided to get one and try it out. I did a test shoot to compare the two lenses on my D300. During this test I shot on a tripod with an sb800 through an umbrella camera right. I used the D2xIII curve setting to get more color. I'm trying to figure out which lens to keep but see if you can guess which pics belong to which lens(I'll tell you guys which is which later). BTW, I'll add some test portrait shots of a actual person later.

    comparison-35-f56.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    This was shot at 35mm f/5.6

    comparison-70-f56.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    This was shot at 70mm f/5.6
     
  2. In each case, the second image had more contrast and the first images seem to have that "warm" Tamron color cast. So I'm guessing the second sample at each focal length was taken with the Nikon 35-70.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 14, 2008
  3. BostjanP

    BostjanP

    34
    Jun 8, 2008
    Slovenia
    On center crops at f/5.6 it's almost impossible to tell which pics belong to which lens. Take some shots wide open and look into the corners if you really want to see the difference.
     
  4. sinigang619

    sinigang619

    26
    Aug 8, 2007
    San Diego
    That's the results that I was actually hoping for but the first images are actually from the Nikon. The second images are from the Tamron. For some reason I'm get brighter (if that's the right term) pictures from the Nikon which I think is resulting in disappointing contrast and color. I'm not sure what is causing this but I'm trying to find out if it's something that I'm doing wrong. I hoping that I didn't get a bad copy of this lens or that I just need to shoot with a lens hood or something (this copy didn't come with one so I have to order one). I'm going to do tests with a real person and see if I can figure out if I'm doing something wrong but if anyone has experience with this please chime in. Your help would be greatly appreciated.
     
  5. sinigang619

    sinigang619

    26
    Aug 8, 2007
    San Diego
    Thanks for the tip. I'll do this with the next comparisons I do. I'll try and post something soon.
     
  6. The second set are much better and if they are from the Tamron then just stick with it.

    The Tamron is a newer design and may have more modern coating and besides, it is lighter and has a bit more range.

    I own a 35-70 and like it but every lens has some weak spots and one major one of such on the Tamron is its name badge.
     
  7. sinigang619

    sinigang619

    26
    Aug 8, 2007
    San Diego
    Thanks for the advice. So far I am leaning towards keep the Tamron as you said although I still do want to make sure that I wasn't doing anything wrong while taking the pictures so I won't be rushing my decision.

    I forgot to mention also that my purpose of either of these lenses would be a general purpose lens and I like both because of their size and weight. I also did not title the thread correctly. The lens I'm am actually referring to is the Tamron 28-75 rather than a 24-75 which most probably figured out because there isn't a 24-75, or at least not to my knowledge.
     
  8. cotdt

    cotdt

    Jul 14, 2007
    Bay Area, USA
    They did comparisons between the Tamron 28-75 and the huge Nikon 28-70 f/2.8, and the Tamron held its own so long as the autofocus was spot on. That's very impressive considering the smaller size and cost of the Tamron. The autofocus is not very precise though, however there is a new version with a built in focus motor.
     
  9. Looks like you have your answer, but I must say that I came back to this thread on several occasion just to remind myself of when my 7-year old was a baby and played with Tad!!! Good memories...
     
  10. MikeyD40

    MikeyD40

    151
    Feb 18, 2007
    Arlington, TX
    I am also leaning towards getting one of these lenses, to keep my Tamron 17-50 company....btw, I love the name! Sinigang619, now you made me hungry for some!
     
  11. Hard to make a decision

    based on two samples, but in this case the Tamron is clearly better.
     
  12. Tosh

    Tosh

    May 6, 2005
    NY

    What he said.

    If your f/2.8 tests are consistent with your f/5.6 shots, then your Tamron is clearly the better copy. Did you first check whether the lenses could benefit from your D300's AF adjustment tuning?
     
  13. sinigang619

    sinigang619

    26
    Aug 8, 2007
    San Diego
    I've wanted to do this for my lenses but from everything I've read so far, would the results be consistent throughout the focal length on a zoom? I really want to do this with my 50mm since it's a prime but I'm just plain too lazy but I'll get to it someday. As for color/contrast though, I don't think it will change the results, although I could be wrong.

    I found a few people talking about how lens flare can be really bad with this lens and so far I've experienced the same. I'm debating on whether I should go and grab a hood but I'll do more research to find out if it will even help.
     
  14. zigzag

    zigzag

    307
    Oct 16, 2005
    Boston
    I have a copy of the 35-70 as well, bought off ebay like you.

    Did you look inside the lens with a flashlight shone through? This could be the reason for the lack of constrast. Mine exhibits this in spades, and it turns out it's just dirty or fungi...inside.
     
  15. The Tamron 28-75 2.8

    is a pretty underated lens sans the QA/QC issues. My friend shoots weddings/studio work and has some of the finest L glass available, but swears by his Tamron 28-75 claming it is better than his other glass. i have always been too nervous to pull the trigger myself, but for $350, how much can you loose (and he keeps telling me I am really missing out)....
     
  16. sinigang619

    sinigang619

    26
    Aug 8, 2007
    San Diego
    Awesome! Thanks for the tip... I'll check it out today when I get a chance and let you know if I find anything.
     
  17. sinigang619

    sinigang619

    26
    Aug 8, 2007
    San Diego
    That's really interesting... I'd like to see your friends work if you have any samples. I'm going to do more tests but I've heard some people say things like that which is why I really jumped on it. So far though, I use my 50mm 1.4 a lot more often than my 28-75.

    As for the QA/QC issues, I was very worried about that.
     
  18. barisaxer

    barisaxer

    278
    Apr 6, 2006
    Albany OR
    I have a tamron 28-75 and A 18-50 and am very pleased with both. Great deals for light and sharp lenses. 1st and last are the 28-75 and teh one in the middle is the 17-50

    original.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)



    original.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)



    original.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
     
  19. Tosh

    Tosh

    May 6, 2005
    NY
    I guess I'm a fan of the 28-75 as a general purpose lens.

    I've used it on a D2HS at the park to capture peaceful, meditative moments:

    [​IMG]
    1/1500 at 5, ISO 400, 66mm.


    I've used it on a D50 at a museum for a bright and playful Murakami art exhibit:

    [​IMG]
    1/640 at 3.5, ISO 400, 70mm.


    I've used it on a D300 at a Buddhist monastery to capture the largest indoor Buddha statue in the Western hemisphere:

    [​IMG]
    1/100 at 10, ISO 1600, 32mm.


    On the D300 on the street to capture fellow shooters of various hues:

    [​IMG]
    1/1000 at 5, ISO 200, 28mm.

    And again on the D300 on the street to capture the bold, but not so beautiful.
    [​IMG]
    1/1260 at 4, ISO 200, 36mm.

    I've used it on a D3 at a gymnastics meet as a small secondary lens:

    [​IMG]
    1/250 at 2.8, ISO 3200, 75mm.

    Although I've always owned either the Nikon 28-70 or 24-70 at the same time as the Tamron 28-75, the 28-75 sees a lot of use and I'm rather pleased with its performance.
    I've bought and tried the 18-70, 18-135, 18-200vr, and 24-85 as travel/light carry alternatives, but the Tamron's image quality always causes me to sell those other lenses.
     
  20. ecalcagnino

    ecalcagnino

    31
    Dec 18, 2007
    Chicago Area
    I liked the IQ of the 28-75 but the noisy motor and constant focus hunting in low-light chasing my 2yr old around was not doing it for me. I picked up a used 24-70 2.8 so I am hoping for the gazillion dollar difference that I am utterly blown away.

    Eric
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.