FX lens on a DX body?

J

jayeshpp

Messages
1,116
Name
Jay
Edit My Images
No
See my latest post...

I'm stuck between which lens to go for...

Sigma 24-70 EX DG Macro vs Nikon 24-85mm 2.8-4

They both fall happily within my budget (around £400-450), they both have the sort of range I require - I want to get a good quality lens that has a bit of flexibility for fashion, beauty and glamour indoor shoots and location shoots. I currently have the 50mm 1.4, which is incredible although for a full length shot I would like to get closer to the subject, so thats why im thinking the 24-35mm sort of range would come in of good use, especially with a fast aperture... The lens will also be great for when I start off doing weddings (hopefully later in the year)...

If I were to go for the Sigma i'm thinking I may be sacrificing some 'quality' compared to the Nikon lens, but with the Nikon I do not have the constant aperture of 2.8!

Or is there a lens that i'm missing out? I was considering the Tamron 17-50 2.8 but that doesnt feel as appealing as the Sigma or the Nikon.

What do you guys suggest? And any experiences from either of the two suggested lenses? If you have example shots of either of the lenses that would be much appreciated, I need to look out for the distortion..

The ideal lens would be the Nikon 24-70 2.8 but unfortunately thats way out of my budget...
 
I've owned both the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lenses - they are both optically very nice indeed. For the focal range you are looking at the second Tamron could well be what you're looking for. :)
 
Have you had any experience in comparing the Tamron vs the Nikon?

I'm seriously considering just going for the top and getting the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 because it'll be cheaper in the long run as I wont have to buy/sell the other lenses, plus it'll be even better when I make the move onto the Nikon FX SLRs. It seems pointless in some ways to buy something like the Nikon 24-85mm, or the Tamron 28-75mm, or am I just being naivé?

Are there any negative aspects when using a full frame lens on a cropped sensor? I understand it'll be 1.5 x the focal length, but is there anything else I should take into consideration which may change my mind to buy something different? I'm aware the lens is fairly heavy, but what will I be missing? Is it not worth buying it to use on a D90 as I am not making the most of it's true capabilities?

Anyones opinions are much appreciated
 
Well, I'm afriad that I'm not wedding photographer, nor do I shoot portraits or even have years of experience under my belt, but ...

I had the same thoughts about going for the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 as my main lens for my D700, until I did some more thorough research :naughty:. What I found from people on this and other forums, who had owned both (like our "puddleduck", for instance) was that they felt the image quality on the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 could rival the Nikon offering and even exceed it in a very few (pixel peeping) situations, at specific settings.

I took a leap of faith and bought the Tamron :|. It cost 260 quid (3 months ago), whereas the Nikon was at least 5 times more :eek:!!! The sharpness of this lens exceeds my Nikon 18-35mm and 70-300mm VR by an enormous margin and is not far behind (if at all) my Sigma 50mm f1.4, which is crazy sharp! Luckily, I got a good one with no QC issues and it is my main lens (f2.8 is so useful for shallow DOF, that I could never go back to a "walk about" lens with anything less).

Obviously, the Nikon version is far superior in terms of build quality and will no doubt out perform the Tamron in a handful of situations. But it's a lot of money - money which could be better spent on other kit, IMHO.

Again, I'm no great authority on this subject, I just dug around a lot ;). What I found was that there was no other Nikon zoom lens that I had found, which had such a close rival from the "third party" camp.

One last point. The latest version of the Tamron has a built-in motor. I needed this, so that I could use it on my D40 body as well (it sits nicely on there and isn't too heavy). Other users have commented that the original version of the Tamron 28-75mm has no motor drive and actually focusses faster (and more quietly) using the camera body's motor, than the new version. So, it may be worth looking for a non-motor version for your D90. They frequently crop up for sale on here, I believe.

This is not a recommendation to go out and buy the Tamron, it's a recommendation to Google around a bit more and get some more opinions ;).

Good luck!

P.S. I was a little confused by the 2nd paragraph in your last post. You do know that the Tamron 28-75 is an "FX" lens, and not a "DX", right!?
 
Thanks for a very informative reply,

My main concern was that could a £350~ lens really compete with a £1200 lens?

I think a good decision could be to opt for the Tamron at the moment mainly for the financial stake and having read convincing opinions it does seem like a good choice. If I didn't think it was up to scratch then I would most probably be able to sell it off quite quickly without much of a loss as well.

But it brings me to the dilemma yet again, I only plan to shoot fashion, weddings, etc. I dont find much else as interesting so thats why it makes more sense to go for the Nikon.

EDIT:
I wasn't actually aware of that, because the main lens I have been looking at is the 24-85 2.8-4 and the 24-75 2.8! I haven't looked into the Tamron 28-75 that much because I wanted to have that extra range of the 24mm.
 
jayeshpp said:
Thanks for a very informative reply,

My main concern was that could a £350~ lens really compete with a £1200 lens?

I think a good decision could be to opt for the Tamron at the moment mainly for the financial stake and having read convincing opinions it does seem like a good choice. If I didn't think it was up to scratch then I would most probably be able to sell it off quite quickly without much of a loss as well.

But it brings me to the dilemma yet again, I only plan to shoot fashion, weddings, etc. I dont find much else as interesting so thats why it makes more sense to go for the Nikon.

EDIT:
I wasn't actually aware of that, because the main lens I have been looking at is the 24-85 2.8-4 and the 24-75 2.8! I haven't looked into the Tamron 28-75 that much because I wanted to have that extra range of the 24mm.
Click to expand...

Sure, if you feel that you really only want to own one main lens and that you're going to be using it a lot (especially professionally), then the Nikon makes a lot of sense.

In my case, I knew that I also wanted a top wide angle lens and a decent long zoom as well. The "Holy Trinity" from Nikon would cost over 5K :(!!!

Sometimes it is a "false economy" to buy a cheaper lens and end up selling it off at a loss in favour of the thing that you wanted in the first place. I've just had that experience with my wide angle Nikkors - I bought the 18-35mm f/4.5-5 (!?) and then replaced it with the 17-35mm f/2.8. That move will lose me over 100 quid when I sell the 18-35 :'(.

Still, if it's really only the performance that matters to you and not the build quality or prestige factor of the Nikon, then the 28-75mm Tamron is still a very fine FX lens (although you might have to step back an extra foot or so now and again, due to the "missing" 4mm ;)).
 
@ the OP- wrt Tamron lenses, Di means it's designed for Full-Frame whereas Di II means it is designed for a Cropped-Sensor. You really can't go far wrong with the 28-75mm IMHO. If you wanted wider, you could always supplement with another Full-Frame Tamron lens, the 17-35mm.
 
jayeshpp said:
But it brings me to the dilemma yet again, I only plan to shoot fashion, weddings, etc. I dont find much else as interesting so thats why it makes more sense to go for the Nikon.
Click to expand...

Why is it a dilemma? Reliability? Snobbery?
 
jayeshpp said:
Thanks for a very informative reply,

My main concern was that could a £350~ lens really compete with a £1200 lens?
Click to expand...

I've PM'd you a link to a full JPEG from the 28-75 wide open.

If you can't get sharp sellable images - well..its not the lens ;)
 
If you can afford the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 just get it, I have used one and it's amazing, also if you later upgrade to an FX body you can always keep it.
 
sdb123 said:
@ the OP- wrt Tamron lenses, Di means it's designed for Full-Frame whereas Di II means it is designed for a Cropped-Sensor. You really can't go far wrong with the 28-75mm IMHO. If you wanted wider, you could always supplement with another Full-Frame Tamron lens, the 17-35mm.
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing that out, and yeah, the 17-35 was a thought in the back of my mind actually.

sdb123 said:
Why is it a dilemma? Reliability? Snobbery?
Click to expand...

Reliability, build quailty, preference etc.
 
puddleduck said:
I've PM'd you a link to a full JPEG from the 28-75 wide open.

If you can't get sharp sellable images - well..its not the lens ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks for sending me that image, it is definitely very sharp and is convincing.

kardo said:
If you can afford the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 just get it, I have used one and it's amazing, also if you later upgrade to an FX body you can always keep it.
Click to expand...

That is the plan, although financially I can afford it, I honestly don't think it's very wise that I spent that amount at the moment..

Thanks for everyones input, very much appreciated!

Going by what i've read on here, and other places and from what i've seen I think the smarter move would be to go for the Tamron 28-75, I as much as i'd like the Nikon, i'd rather not part with that amount of money right now.
 
jayeshpp said:
Thanks for sending me that image, it is definitely very sharp and is convincing.
Click to expand...

Indeed. And having owned the 24-70 (and 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S) I can honestly say the Tamron doesn't give up anything in wide open goodness.

You are paying for build quality, start of the art AF, and slightly (and I mean slightly) better bokeh. Blind test side by side without EXIF is revealing (I did it myself and had to check!)

You'll get a lot of posts saying "just buy the 24-70" (which is fine when you are spending someone else's money!) - I'm not saying you shouldn't - but there are some excellent options about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top