- Messages
- 5,813
- Edit My Images
- No
Hello and welcome to my very basic test and comparison of these two lenses.
When I was debating the 28-75 it was mentioned to test both and see what was best, so here is my initial thoughts and test shots.
The lens was for general purpose, indoors and outdoors, portraits, animals, places etc.
Firstly the lenses...
Build and handling
The Nikon, even though a 'kit lens' has the much better build. It almost feels tank like compared to the Tamron! Nothing loose, barrel is firm and the zoom is nice. Neither too loose or tight. My only gripe is that its quite a stubby lens and almost feels too short for a zoom. It really is very compact, but also wider than the Tamron.
The Tamron whoever feels fairly cheap. To be honest, if I am feeling mean, I would compare it to the 18-55 VR build wise. The zoom ring has a tiny bit of play, the barrel wobbles slightly and the plastic is fairly low grade. Besides this it does however have a nice weight to it and is nice and compact. You would never think it was a constant f2.8 lens. Again handling wise, my major gripe is the spinning focus ring. If keep having part of my hand on it as it spins away!
Build and handling wise, this is most certainly +1 to the Nikon.
Focus speed and accuracy do seem pretty equal, maybe the Nikon is a tad quicker. The Tamron seems fairly quick considering this one has the BIM. The only time you notice its slower is when you are focusing from one end to the other. I wouldn't put either lens ahead of the other and focus seems accurate on both. No clear winner hear.
DOF - clear winner is of course the Tamron. You can get extreme out of focus shots all the way through the range. That saying, the Nikon does not do a bad job. This is largely due to it having f4.5 at 85mm, rather than the normal f5.6 on most zooms. Also, being FX, you get a much better DOF compared to the equal f-stop on DX. So if you use these lenses on FX, your results will differ a great deal.
So all in all, this is +1 to the Tamron.
IQ and Sharpness...
Difficult one to call with my limited testing! Main aim of this mini test was too see how the lenses performed indoors (at fairly high ISO). I'm pretty sure outdoors they will be very similar. Both sets of photos have plus points and negative points. The VR certainly helps the Nikon keep up with the Tamron in sharpness and IQ and I think I prefer the slight colour change from the Nikon, although looking over them a 2nd time, I'm not sure!
Again, tough one to call, but pretty equal.
So what have I concluded? Firstly, please note this test may not be for everyones benefit, and I am not comparing my results to the mighty 24-70 f2.8 Nikon, but here goes.
There is no doubting having a constant f2.8 zoom is beneficial and the results you can get just cant be replicated by a variable aperture lens.
Saying that, with the ISO capabilities of the D600 (and no doubt the D800, D610 etc) the 24-85 is also a very capable lens.
If you need constant f2.8 on a budget, the Tamron is a no brainer. That's if you can live with the build quality.
Of course, the Nikon may not be for everyones taste either, so feel free to take my results and conclusion as a pinch of salt!
I'm very much on the fence with this decision. One has to go and one has to stay.
Having done a few more around the house shots, I'm beginning to see the benefits of the Tamron. If I can live with the build quality I'm sure we will get along just fine. Lens shows no sign of creep unless you shake it a bit and it does move downwards, but looking around at the www, its not uncommon. Saying that... it has a lock switch, which is a handy edition.
Anyway... some photos in the next 2 posts...
When I was debating the 28-75 it was mentioned to test both and see what was best, so here is my initial thoughts and test shots.
The lens was for general purpose, indoors and outdoors, portraits, animals, places etc.
Firstly the lenses...
Build and handling
The Nikon, even though a 'kit lens' has the much better build. It almost feels tank like compared to the Tamron! Nothing loose, barrel is firm and the zoom is nice. Neither too loose or tight. My only gripe is that its quite a stubby lens and almost feels too short for a zoom. It really is very compact, but also wider than the Tamron.
The Tamron whoever feels fairly cheap. To be honest, if I am feeling mean, I would compare it to the 18-55 VR build wise. The zoom ring has a tiny bit of play, the barrel wobbles slightly and the plastic is fairly low grade. Besides this it does however have a nice weight to it and is nice and compact. You would never think it was a constant f2.8 lens. Again handling wise, my major gripe is the spinning focus ring. If keep having part of my hand on it as it spins away!
Build and handling wise, this is most certainly +1 to the Nikon.
Focus speed and accuracy do seem pretty equal, maybe the Nikon is a tad quicker. The Tamron seems fairly quick considering this one has the BIM. The only time you notice its slower is when you are focusing from one end to the other. I wouldn't put either lens ahead of the other and focus seems accurate on both. No clear winner hear.
DOF - clear winner is of course the Tamron. You can get extreme out of focus shots all the way through the range. That saying, the Nikon does not do a bad job. This is largely due to it having f4.5 at 85mm, rather than the normal f5.6 on most zooms. Also, being FX, you get a much better DOF compared to the equal f-stop on DX. So if you use these lenses on FX, your results will differ a great deal.
So all in all, this is +1 to the Tamron.
IQ and Sharpness...
Difficult one to call with my limited testing! Main aim of this mini test was too see how the lenses performed indoors (at fairly high ISO). I'm pretty sure outdoors they will be very similar. Both sets of photos have plus points and negative points. The VR certainly helps the Nikon keep up with the Tamron in sharpness and IQ and I think I prefer the slight colour change from the Nikon, although looking over them a 2nd time, I'm not sure!
Again, tough one to call, but pretty equal.
So what have I concluded? Firstly, please note this test may not be for everyones benefit, and I am not comparing my results to the mighty 24-70 f2.8 Nikon, but here goes.
There is no doubting having a constant f2.8 zoom is beneficial and the results you can get just cant be replicated by a variable aperture lens.
Saying that, with the ISO capabilities of the D600 (and no doubt the D800, D610 etc) the 24-85 is also a very capable lens.
If you need constant f2.8 on a budget, the Tamron is a no brainer. That's if you can live with the build quality.
Of course, the Nikon may not be for everyones taste either, so feel free to take my results and conclusion as a pinch of salt!
I'm very much on the fence with this decision. One has to go and one has to stay.
Having done a few more around the house shots, I'm beginning to see the benefits of the Tamron. If I can live with the build quality I'm sure we will get along just fine. Lens shows no sign of creep unless you shake it a bit and it does move downwards, but looking around at the www, its not uncommon. Saying that... it has a lock switch, which is a handy edition.
Anyway... some photos in the next 2 posts...
Last edited:
