DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Tamron 28-75 f2.8 zoom or 2 primes?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 21 of 21, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 05/14/2009 08:14:32 PM · #1
At the moment I have the 18-105 VR kit lens that came with my D90, a nice enough lens for what it is but I'm getting more and more frustrated with it (or maybe just my lack of skill, no never :) ) As always the solution is get a sharper faster lens and I'll be a better photographer ;) The problem is lack of cash, or even more the point the financial adviser (wife) feeling there are better thing to spend cash on, house, kids, holidays etc!

So with a limited budget I was considering getting some primes to compliment the kit lens:
- Nikon AF-S 35mm f1.8G
- Considering the newly announced Tamron 60mm f2 macro (no price or reviews yet though but sound promising)
Thinking this would give me a good coverage for a "normal" perspective lens and a portrait type lens.

Reading the Bear_Music interview I became interested in the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 lens which I've done a little research on and I can't find a bad word about (AF speed doesn't worry me much). I can buy this for well under what I could get 60mm prime for. So I am leaning towards this lens.

So am I going to get a noticeable improvement on this lens over my 18-105 or should I go the primes? I note there a few users here of this lens so any experiences would be appreciated.

Message edited by author 2009-05-14 20:16:04.
 05/14/2009 08:20:42 PM · #2
Tamron 28-75mm is well worth it if you don't like to change lenses a lot. I bought one even though I have primes within that range.

Pentax FA 31mm f/1.8 AL Limited AF
Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF
Pentax FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited AF
Pentax FA 85mm F1.4 IF AF
Pentax SMC P-DA 40mm f/2.8

Less zoom range normally means better quality. + the price isn't too bad. Sometimes it easier just to carry a zoom instead of all the lenses. I use dual k10d and sometimes it's still easier to use the Tamron instead of 2 primes. Maybe if I buy another one I might run all primes during event/portrait shooting.

Message edited by author 2009-05-14 20:24:20.
 05/14/2009 09:07:14 PM · #3
If I was going to shoot mostly weddings and other event type stuff, I'd have to go with a zoom. When you consider changing lens or backing up to get more room, primes become difficult.
But If I was going to do set up shoots like shooting models or products, I'd definitely go with the primes. Because I can work out the spacing I'd need to work with and also would'nt have to worry about missing a shot since it's all staged.

But that's just my opinion.
 05/14/2009 09:09:52 PM · #4
Primes will be much sharper than any zooms. If you want sharpness, I'd go primes. But you can't beat the versatility of a zoom when walking around. Ultimately you have to decide what you want to do with the lens.
 05/14/2009 10:01:30 PM · #5
I have a few primes, but the Tamron 28-75 is my walk around lens. Canon makes a better lens in the range. A little better, very little. And it costs more than twice as much. Same with Nikon I'm sure.

This is a very sharp zoom, and for the same money you might get two primes, as long as one of them was the 50mm. You wont be able to buy a 28mm and a 70mm that are as fast for the same money.

Some folks here at DPC have even used it with moderate success in place of a prime in the studio.


Keep in mind these shots are what it does worst. It is a great walk around lens, even if it isn't usefull in the studio.

Message edited by author 2009-05-14 22:02:13.
 05/14/2009 10:03:27 PM · #6
Thanks for the responces

I do a bit of set up work with challenges here, but most of the time its walk around stuff, or events, hence my liking of the zoom. If I got the zoom, I would probably fork out the $200 for a 50mm f1.8 to give me that option for setup work. I've been hesitant to get the 50mm since the 35f1.8G was announced and I've been considering a 60mm, it seemed an odd fit with those two.

I suppose my question is, is the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 going to be a noticeable improvement over the 18-105VR f3.5-5.6 kit lens. On speed I think it is pretty clear, IQ however I only suspect.

I enjoy photography, and playing in many aspects, still finding my groove you might say. So really I'm trying to get the best blend of IQ and flexibility out of a meager budget, a tough ask I know.
 05/14/2009 10:45:49 PM · #7
5/6 of my highest scoring challenge entries were studio shots taken the Tamron 28-75. 'Nuff said.
 05/14/2009 11:18:49 PM · #8
It is the best lens to start with, once you have it, you can start collecting primes,
If you lost this lens, simply sell your primes to buy it again :)
I sold 3 lenses and kept this one only, Next step moving to lenses supporting full frame bodies. Step after is a full fram
camera, then take it from there.
Cheeers,
05/14/2009 11:38:21 PM · #9
Originally posted by millsa:

I suppose my question is, is the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 going to be a noticeable improvement over the 18-105VR f3.5-5.6 kit lens. On speed I think it is pretty clear, IQ however I only suspect.


While I have owned the 28-75 xr/di I bought and returned the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. It was MUCH softer than the Tamron. I don't know the 18-105 vr, but any 28-75 is going to be better optically than any 18-105 in the same price range. And if the Nikon offering is anything like the Canon (which it is reviewed to be) they can hang with the Tamron on color rendering, but not in sharpness.
 05/15/2009 04:19:03 AM · #10
Originally posted by slickchik:
Primes will be much sharper than any zooms. If you want sharpness, I'd go primes. But you can't beat the versatility of a zoom when walking around. Ultimately you have to decide what you want to do with the lens.

While that's a good(ish) rule of thumb, it's not something you can apply universally. The Tamron 28-75 is pretty much "L" sharp; it's certainly plenty sharper than my 50mm prime, and could probably give my 100mm macro a run for it's money too.

Don't get me wrong; I'm a *huge* prime fan but if I had to choose between the Tamron and a pair of primes - even good sharp primes - I think I'd still plump for the Tammy.
 09/27/2010 09:29:01 PM · #11
I'm buying the Tamron 28-75 tonight!! Yipeee!!!

Does anyone know if it comes with a lens hood or if you have to buy it separately? I'm buying through amazon, because B&H & adorama are closed. But it's not clear if it comes with a hood. When I look up a lens hood on amazon, they list it as a "replacement hood". That's why I'm wondering if it is standard with the lens.

Thanks!!
 09/27/2010 09:29:41 PM · #12
It comes with a hood.

R.
 09/27/2010 09:29:55 PM · #13
The hood comes standard.
 09/27/2010 09:37:04 PM · #14
thanks!!
 09/27/2010 10:26:56 PM · #15
I have the Tamron 28-75 and it is a great lens and includes a hood.

Sharp at 2.8 but just stopping it down to 3.2 makes it REALLY sharp and using it on a crop body I have found mine sharp right across the image.

I just recently purchased a canon 17-55 2.8 as I wanted IS and also the wider aspect which my current Tamron didn't offer. I will still be holding onto my Tamron though as it gives me more zoom (75m) for portrait work at small apertures without having to purchase primes.

Edited to add: This is also a popular lens with Timfythetoo, check out his portfolio.

Message edited by author 2010-09-27 22:31:18.
 09/28/2010 04:27:37 AM · #16
If you aren't concerned about AF you'll be super happy with it. Excellent contrast and sharpness, and it has a surprisingly high magnification ratio which opens up some cool possibilities. It's awesomely portable too, which is something I definitely appreciate when I consider taking out the beast nikon 28-70. The Tamron has to way maybe half as much.
Also, I'm going to go ahead and blaspheme here...
everybody raves and raves about the 50 1.8... but I find it an awkward lens. If I'm looking for a prime, I seem to prefer either the 85 or 24 (though it is 2.8) for its focal range, the 50 just seems odd to me. This could just be my own shooting tendencies, but there are a few other users on here that have expressed the same.
 09/28/2010 06:21:30 AM · #17
ummm... I'm concerned about AF... I saw a couple of posts saying that their focusing was off -- but those seemed few and far between. Is it a bigger problem? I can't manual focus well -- eyes aren't good enough to get it just right.

I thought the 50 1.4 was supposed to be markedly better than the 1.8. At least that's the reviews I've seen. Anyway, I have the 50 1.4, but rarely reach for it. If I have the opportunity, I'd rather use the 85mm or 100mm and step back. (If I'm indoors, I don't have much of an option.) Although, to be fair, I think it's because I like the background closer in, so I like the longer focal lengths.
 09/28/2010 07:29:52 AM · #18
Originally posted by vawendy:
ummm... I'm concerned about AF... I saw a couple of posts saying that their focusing was off -- but those seemed few and far between. Is it a bigger problem? I can't manual focus well -- eyes aren't good enough to get it just right.

I thought the 50 1.4 was supposed to be markedly better than the 1.8. At least that's the reviews I've seen. Anyway, I have the 50 1.4, but rarely reach for it. If I have the opportunity, I'd rather use the 85mm or 100mm and step back. (If I'm indoors, I don't have much of an option.) Although, to be fair, I think it's because I like the background closer in, so I like the longer focal lengths.


I found the AF to be perfectly accurate but slower than I would like. Millsa (the OP) said he wasn't worried about AF speed, so that's who I was referencing.
Regarding the 50's, I'm not too familiar with how Canon's stack up against each other. In Nikon's, I've read the 1.8 is sharper wide open and that the 1.4 has more pleasing bokeh and focuses faster plus is a faster aperture. It depends upon your needs which would work better, so it's 6 or a half dozen, really after cost is factored. I just don't find the focal length particularly useful. If I get a 1.4 it'll likely be the Sigma 30mm 1.4, although that new 35mm 1.4 from Nikon is tempting me too (though not tempting my wallet ha).
 09/28/2010 07:54:06 AM · #19
Maybe I'm missing something (I am: brain cells, after spending the weekend at the Oktoberfest), but you're working with a crop factor, so the 30-35mm you want is essentially a 50mm on full frame, no?

I absolutely love my 50mm 1.8, and I cannot imagine being talked into the 1.4 unless I fell into a pit of money. That said, I desperately need to fall into a pit of money, as my current lens selection is sparse.

I'd love that Tamron you're talking about, as my mid-range zoom is weak. I'm plunking down for the Nikon 70-300mm VR now, because 80mm max is also extremely weak. I miss the perspective of the longer focal length. At the same time I was hoping to pick up the Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro, but the fiancee does not like that idea at all at the moment. In an evil twist, all of our money is going to the wedding photographers.
 09/28/2010 08:04:21 AM · #20
Originally posted by bohemka:
Maybe I'm missing something (I am: brain cells, after spending the weekend at the Oktoberfest), but you're working with a crop factor, so the 30-35mm you want is essentially a 50mm on full frame, no?

I absolutely love my 50mm 1.8, and I cannot imagine being talked into the 1.4 unless I fell into a pit of money. That said, I desperately need to fall into a pit of money, as my current lens selection is sparse.

I'd love that Tamron you're talking about, as my mid-range zoom is weak. I'm plunking down for the Nikon 70-300mm VR now, because 80mm max is also extremely weak. I miss the perspective of the longer focal length. At the same time I was hoping to pick up the Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro, but the fiancee does not like that idea at all at the moment. In an evil twist, all of our money is going to the wedding photographers.


No, you're totally right. I was referring to things from a Dx frame (of mind). The 30 is technically a smidge wider than 50 FX, but not appreciably. I'm undecided on going full frame or not, and that's probably the only thing that has made me hang onto my 50 AF-D. The 50 E series MF is just a fun thing to have and I got it for a pittance on craigslist.

Message edited by author 2010-09-28 08:04:43.
 09/29/2010 05:35:55 AM · #21
anyone can comment on Tamron 28-75 f2.8 compare to Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro?

I was told tamron having dark area focus issue. as of now i am keen to get the Sigma 24-70mm, //www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0009E1XF8?ie=UTF8&tag=dpchallenge-forum-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B0009E1XF8

Message edited by author 2010-09-29 05:36:18.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 11/08/2025 06:42:00 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 11/08/2025 06:42:00 PM EST.