|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/16/2007 01:38:30 PM · #1 |
Both f2.8 in several tests I have done (sorry no pics to show just an opinion)
In all 5 of my tests at various focal length's and light situations the Tamron not only BEAT the Nikon lens it actauly hammered it.
I was trying to sell the Tamron unopened in the packaging etc etc now I'm a bit shocked to say I might be keeping it and selling the very expensive Nikon 35-70 f2.8D.
I'm a total brand snob so I was really trying hard to make the Nikon lens win but could not.
Just incase anyone is thinking about a nice fast mid-range zoom at a fair price I cannot recommend this lens enough. BRILLIANT Sharp, fast, great bokeh really smooth, AF is a tiny bit louder than the Nikon but who cares.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2007 02:18:55 PM · #2 |
The 35-70 absolutely sucks at 2.8. It is soft and has low contrast, just like a 50 1.4 at 1.4. By f4 it is tack sharp and has great contrast and color. How did they compare there?
|
|
|
|
09/16/2007 02:27:53 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
The 35-70 absolutely sucks at 2.8. It is soft and has low contrast, just like a 50 1.4 at 1.4. By f4 it is tack sharp and has great contrast and color. How did they compare there? |
Well yes the nikon sharpens up a bit around the f4 mark but so does the Tammy, harder to tell the difference at f4 and over, they seem very close indeed but the Tammy is £200 and the Nikon is £550 ... I like f2.8 and I wish to shoot at f2.8 too so the Tammy may be the keeper here or I might just have to keep both.... headache!!!! |
|
|
|
09/16/2007 02:38:24 PM · #4 |
Hi Marac,
Interesting post and comments.
I also own the Nikkor lens, but I find it well suited for my needs. Why? While you make several legitimate points of comparison, there is a world of difference between these two lenses that questions the fairness of a direct comparison. Here are my thoughts.
1. The Nikkor is a much older design compared to the newer Tamron, so one should expect to see improvements.
2. The Tamron is designed for digital cameras whereas the Nikkor will function on both digital and film cameras.
3. The Tamron has a flat exit pupil specifically for digital CCD and CMOS chips, whereas the Nikkor was designed for film and is a re-purpose to digital, so it is not perfectly optimized.
4. Nikon service is superior in my experience to Tamron service. I judge the brand by how well they act when you are in trouble and in need of help.
5. The Nikkor is much quieter compared to the noise of the Tamron.
6. The Nikkor is said to be sharper at full aperture compared to the Tamron (I do not have direct first-hand experience on this specific issue, so I am repeating what someone else has stated to me).
7. The Tamron has been reported to have inconsistent focus. Sometimes it is perfect and other times, it is not so perfect. The control circuitry of the Nikkor is reputed to be far superior to the Tamron.
8. The Tamron is far more compact and lighter in design, as you might expect. The ergonomics are good, but a bit challenging for someone with big hands like myself. But, my wife prefers the Tamron over the weight of the Nikkor 100% - no debate. She agrees that the ergonomics and "feel" of the Nikkor is better, but just too heavy for her.
9. The Tamron is reported to "hunt" for focus in low light. This may be affected by the camera body combination, so it may not be strictly a lens issue.
10. The Nikkor is more robust in extreme weather conditions. I am in Canada, so this is important to me.
11. The Tamron focusing speed is slower than the Nikkor. This is a problem for sports and action photography.
12. The Tamron is significantly less expensive compared to the hefty price of the Nikkor. This weights heavily in the Tamron favour above all else.
Please do not misunderstand, I like the Tamron too. But, based upon my needs, the Nikkor offers a better solution and fit for what I need.
There is little doubt or argument that the Tamron Lens is a fine product. For many photographers, such as yourself, it may in fact be ideal. For others like me, who still shoots some film and depends on Nikon for after sales support, the Nikkor is an acceptable choice that consistently delivers quality images. Food for thought...
Cheers,
Michael
|
|
|
|
09/16/2007 03:05:15 PM · #5 |
Nice response Morgan thank you.
Couple of points here. You said the Nikon is much quieter than the Tammy, well, although it is a bit quieter it is not so much of a huge difference to be honest, maybe because my lenses are new so not worn yet (the Nikon is only a year old) also the focus (on my Fuji S5 Pro) is very fast with the Tamron, I have heard that on Canon bodies the AF is a bit slow but on the Fuji it is the same as the Nikon.
I LOVE the 35-70 f2.8 it is the perfect companion to my 17-35 f2.8 that I also LOVE. This is why I think I'm gonna end up keeping them both.
I do not know so much about Tamron after sales service but I have had a few probs with Nikon UK, I was in Japan for 10 years and I guess I had gotten used to such a wonderful service from Nikon Japan that anything else was gonna be bad.. UK Nikon cleaned my camera and ended up scratching my sensor, they refused to accept this and wanted to charge me over £400 to replace the sensor, in the end I paid them £108 to replace the glass cover over the sensor it took them over a month to tell me how much and if they would do just the glass replacement, so, I'm a bit sore with Nikon UK.
The build quality of the Nikon is a lot better indeed but my point is more aimed at the fact that for £200 this Tamron lens is a real GEM.
No point my posting resized images saved to web because you will see very little difference to be honest but in full blown size with both lenses at f2.8 the Tamron beats the nikon all day. |
|
|
|
09/16/2007 10:09:24 PM · #6 |
Hi Marac,
I understand what you mean about superior Nikon service in Japan. I did my first degree in Tokyo studying photography for a few years, albeit many years ago, and the service was extraordinary.
When I completed school and was ready to return to Toronto, I wanted to leave Japan with a complete package of bodies and lenses. So, I toured several company factories - Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax and Yashica. Nikon stood out as the best company by a long distance over the others. So, I committed to them and all these years later I have never regretted that decision. Nikon Canada has always taken excellent care of me too. So, I have no complaints.
Now, I have owned Tamron lenses in the past too. So, I know that they do provide excellent value for the money. My wife prefers the Tamron on her D200 to my Nikkor lens, so to each his own.
With regards to the quality and service concerns, one might argue that you could buy two Tamrons for less than the price of the Nikkor. So, if you have problems, just buy another. If you have no issues, keep the money in the bank. lol
Cheers,
Michael
|
|
|
|
09/16/2007 10:37:32 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
The 35-70 absolutely sucks at 2.8. It is soft and has low contrast, just like a 50 1.4 at 1.4. By f4 it is tack sharp and has great contrast and color. How did they compare there? |
hmm.. I did research long time ago and Nikon 35-70 f2.8 was the only lens people called "too sharp". Film photographers had to use softening filter to do portrature because too many skin imperfections were showing up.
Nick |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 09/11/2025 05:54:10 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/11/2025 05:54:10 PM EDT.
|
