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

Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
26
Location
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.

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

This was shot at 35mm f/5.6

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

This was shot at 70mm f/5.6
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Location
San Jose, CA
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:
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
34
Location
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.
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
26
Location
San Diego
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.
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.
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
26
Location
San Diego
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.
Thanks for the tip. I'll do this with the next comparisons I do. I'll try and post something soon.
 
Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
2,024
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.
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
26
Location
San Diego
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.
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.
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
2,450
Location
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.
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
151
Location
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!
 
Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
5,482
Location
NY
based on two samples, but in this case the Tamron is clearly better.

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?
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
26
Location
San Diego
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?
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.
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
307
Location
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.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
1,120
Location
Myrtle Beach, SC
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)....
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
26
Location
San Diego
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.
Awesome! Thanks for the tip... I'll check it out today when I get a chance and let you know if I find anything.
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
26
Location
San Diego
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)....
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.
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2006
Messages
278
Location
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

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



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



Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
5,482
Location
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:

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

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:

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

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:

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

1/100 at 10, ISO 1600, 32mm.


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

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

1/1000 at 5, ISO 200, 28mm.

And again on the D300 on the street to capture the bold, but not so beautiful.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

1/1260 at 4, ISO 200, 36mm.

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

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

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.
 
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
31
Location
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
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom