Tamron 28-105 2.8

[davidzvi]

Been looking for something in this range and am trying to decide between the Nikon 28-105 3.5-4.5 and the Tamron 2.8. I know many have had the Nikon, any have the Tamron? Anyone like it?

 

[steppenout]

I have both. The Nikon is a great lens, nice and sharp, compact and light. The macro capabilities aren't bad even though it's not a true macro lens. For outdoor work it's going to be just fine. For available light shooting in lower light situations, the Tamron's 2.8 aperature is much better obviously. I've used it mostly for shooting stage shows without flash and I've been very happy. It's also very sharp but has a bit more distortion at the wide end than the Nikon. The downside is that it's big and heavy, definitely not a lens you would want to carry around all day at Disney World. :biggrin:

 

[davidzvi]

Is the Tamron heavier than the Nikon 17-55?

I'm looking to use the lens as a back up to what I have for events (wedding, bar mitzvah's, etc), as a main lens toward the end of the events when I would other be constantly changing cameras or lenses, and as a walking around lens, my son got my 24-120 vr last year and it wasn't really fast enough anyway.

So the tamron would probably at 2.8-4 and the nikon as open as it can be. I would be using flash and/or available light.

 

[steppenout]

Looking at the specs for each lens, the Tamron 28-105 2.8 is 31.4 oz and the Nikon 17-55 2.8 is 26.6 oz. I wouldn't use either for a "walking around lens" but they are certainly useful for a specific application.

 

[davidzvi]

Looking at the specs for each lens, the Tamron 28-105 2.8 is 31.4 oz and the Nikon 17-55 2.8 is 26.6 oz. I wouldn't use either for a "walking around lens" but they are certainly useful for a specific application.

Actually the 17-55 is my main lens. :redface:

 

[steppenout]

Actually the 17-55 is my main lens. :redface:

LOL....Ok, maybe I'm just lazy. :tongue: