Tamron 28 - 75 F2.8 Nikon

sep9001

sep9001

Messages
5,628
Name
Kev
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

I have a Nikon 18-70 but am thinking of getting the above lens to use with my D90?

Any one used both, is it worth getting the Tamron? Also how much would a second hand non BIM be worth in good condition.

Thank you
 
Yes, excellent lens provided you get a good one - some dodgy copies floating about so be prepared to return if you get one. You may miss the width if you are at <28mm much on your 18-70 but aside from that it's a great upgrade (and the 18-70 is no slouch either). Going rate seems to be around £200-230 for a non-BIM if you can find one.
 
Thanks. I was looking for the 28-75 for that bit of extra reach over the 17-50.
 
I have both the 17-50 and the 28-75 f2.8 non bim


On the d90 the 17-50 is awesome. If you want extra reach maybe a 70-200 f2.8 would cover your needs.

Not used the 28-75 on my d90 but its my go to lens on the d800

S
 
25mm isn't worth the sacrifice at the short end for me, you can either crop or take a step forwards. Also the FF lens is bigger and heavier which is never good thing on a walk around lens.
 
Sir SR said:
I have both the 17-50 and the 28-75 f2.8 non bim

On the d90 the 17-50 is awesome. If you want extra reach maybe a 70-200 f2.8 would cover your needs.

Not used the 28-75 on my d90 but its my go to lens on the d800

S
Click to expand...

Thanks. I cannot afford the the 70-200. I saw in another thread you might be selling your lens, if you do please let me know.
 
Nawty said:
25mm isn't worth the sacrifice at the short end for me, you can either crop or take a step forwards. Also the FF lens is bigger and heavier which is never good thing on a walk around lens.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Will look for the 17-50 one.
 
Sorry is this the correct version I should be looking for.

Tamron 17-50 mm SP F2.8 XR Di ll LD Aspherical (IF)

Thanks
 
I had the Tamron 28-75 and only recently sold it. It is a superbly compact lens for what it is. That was the reason I kept it despite having the 24-70 Nikon as well. It was very good as a walk about. I really don't get these comment to get a dx lens, there is no logic in it. On the contrary with a dx body you are using the sharpest part of that fx lens. I had the 17-50 Tamron first,but the 28-75 is most definitely in a different league.

Another to consider as a walkabout is the original 24-120 3.5-5.6. Not the newer afs vr one, but the original afd model. It is superb as a walkabout.
 
Well, put it this way...

I have the Tamron 28-75 for my D700 but wouldn't consider using it on my DX body. I guess having FF has an influence here as the reason I have DX is for lightweight.

Still, 28mm simply isn't wide enough on DX for me and 75mm isn't really much of an advantage over 50mm.
 
Nawty said:
Well, put it this way...

I have the Tamron 28-75 for my D700 but wouldn't consider using it on my DX body. I guess having FF has an influence here as the reason I have DX is for lightweight.

Still, 28mm simply isn't wide enough on DX for me and 75mm isn't really much of an advantage over 50mm.
Click to expand...

Sure if you aren't happy to step backwards for the 11mm, but are happy to walk in for the 25mm then that makes perfect sense. :) but that has nothing to do with dx vs fx lenses. I mean the focal length is what it is, if the focal length is not what is required then it was a mute point to look at it in the first place. I totally agree. For me I rarely shoot below 24mm but if the op does do that then there isn't much point in looking into this in the first place.

For iq I'd still prefer the 28-75, the 17-50 is ok, but never wowed me.
 
Thank you for your comments. Looks like I might have to do a but more investigation as to what to get. I wish I could try both before I decide.... :-!
 
Last edited:
The non bim will be hard to find but the bim version of both are readily available. Just don't forget that you also have the 18-70 imo one of the best kit lenses nikon ever provided. Sure it hasn't got the fastest constant aperture but a very solid performer imo.
 
Last edited:
dejongj said:
The non bim will be hard to find but the bim version of both are readily available. Just don't forget that you also have the 18-70 imo one of the best kit lenses nikon ever provided. Sure it hasn't got the fastest constant aperture but a very solid performer imo.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I was thinking of selling the 18-70 and getting the Tamron one. Should I just stick with the 18-70?
 
sep9001 said:
Thanks. I was thinking of selling the 18-70 and getting the Tamron one. Should I just stick with the 18-70?
Click to expand...

It is your choice naturally. I have owned my 18-70 since I bought my D70 kit, and it is the one lens I can't get myself to getting rid off.

a) You wont get much for it second hand, and
b) It is just such a good performer with perfect Nikon image signature imo. Give it some light and flash and it really shines.

If you are looking to change it for the Tamron 17-50 or 28-75 imo you only gain constant aperture, so a little bit better low light capability and a tiny bit of dof....If you can afford it, I'd keep it.
 
dejongj said:
It is your choice naturally. I have owned my 18-70 since I bought my D70 kit, and it is the one lens I can't get myself to getting rid off.

a) You wont get much for it second hand, and
b) It is just such a good performer with perfect Nikon image signature imo. Give it some light and flash and it really shines.

If you are looking to change it for the Tamron 17-50 or 28-75 imo you only gain constant aperture, so a little bit better low light capability and a tiny bit of dof....If you can afford it, I'd keep it.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
I'd agree, unless you find yourself constantly thinking "I need a faster lens" then there's no reason to change, the 18-70 is a very nice lens.
 
Nawty said:
I'd agree, unless you find yourself constantly thinking "I need a faster lens" then there's no reason to change, the 18-70 is a very nice lens.
Click to expand...

Thanks, will keep the 18-70 for now and save some money, just had the spending bug...

Thank you all for the input and help.
 
Nawty said:
... Also the FF lens is bigger and heavier which is never good thing on a walk around lens.
Click to expand...

Can't say I've ever noticed a big difference between these lenses; just had both out to compare.

The 17-50mm is around 11 cm long, and the 28-75mm around 12 cm (with caps on). They are both around the same girth. I couldn't really tell much difference in weight by hand.

As everyone else has said, both superb lenses, even disregarding the bargain prices. I also think that 28-75mm can be useful on crop sensors.
 
Last edited:
Xjacktar said:
Can't say I've ever noticed a big difference between these lenses; just had both out to compare.

The 17-50mm is around 11 cm long, and the 28-75mm around 12 cm (with caps on). They are both around the same girth. I couldn't really tell much difference in weight by hand.

As everyone else has said, both superb lenses, even disregarding the bargain prices. I also think that 28-75mm can be useful on crop sensors.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Not too fused about size, just wanted it because of the f2.8.

Will keep and eye out for either but for now will just use my 18-70.
 
Sorry about this silly question. As the 28-75 is a FF lens, does it mean on my d90 it would become a 42mm by 112mm. Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top