Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 vs Nikon 35-70mm F2.8

cwinhall

cwinhall

Messages
571
Name
Colin
Edit My Images
Yes
As per title,

I need to make a decision whether to go for a Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 or the Nikon 35-70mm F2.8

I have a tokina 11-16 (or rather will have soon).. so the wide angle that the tamron gives as aposed to the Nikon isn't a big deal for me.
 
Cant help on the Nikon but impressed with the Tamron. Did have the excellent 17-55mm 2.8 Nikon and did a couple of tests (very un-scientifically) in my lounge. The Nikon was better at 2,8 in terms of colour and sharpness, but once you got to f4 ish there was little difference and to my eye thought that f5.6 was better on Tamron.
 
Nikon 35-70 is a corker for full frame at a fraction of the cost of the other Nikon offerings.

I have one Tamron and really like it, but it feels like a small impact would shatter it.The Nikon is better built all round, something I need to consider, you may be different..........:)
 
The stronger the lens the better as far as Im concerned!

I read a review on kenrockwell about the 35-70 and it said this;

Production History: Nikon made about 130,000 AF versions from 1987 - 1992, and about 430,000 AF-D versions from 1992 - 2006.
Click to expand...

Can anyone tell me what the difference would be between the AF-D and the AF models?

By the way, I would be shooting on a D200.

Edit:

Found what I was looking for

AF-D, "D Type" (Distance Information): 1992 top

Another very subtle improvement you may safely ignore.

These lenses let the camera know the distance at which the lens is focused.

In very rare instances it helps the matrix meter, especially with flash, determine the exposure more accurately.

The biggest difference with D lenses is using flash and with subjects occupying only a small part of the frame. The distance information lets the newest cameras get the correct flash exposure, while with non-D lenses the camera has to guess harder.

AF-D work the same as AF lenses, even in difficult flash situations. The only difference I could see was if I had a backlit shot with an object in the foreground. If you focus on the foreground the image attempts to expose the flash for the foreground object, and if you focus on the background, the foreground object becomes too light

Another improvement is if you want to photograph straight into mirrors. Without a D lens you'll get underexposure because the image of the flash in the mirror fools the meter into underexposure. With D lenses you'll get a properly exposed image of a bright flash. I've expended film on this foolishness so you don't have to.

If you are buying used lenses on a budget you can get the earlier non-D versions cheaper. Don't worry here.

In fact, the instruction manual of the 105mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor cautions that the D feature of the lens can lead to the WRONG EXPOSURE unless you keep your flashes at the same distance from the subject as the film, which is a real obstacle to creativity.

There are a couple of ways to signify a "D" lens: Nikon usually marks its lenses as "50mm f/1.4D AF" as opposed to "50mm f/1.4 AF-D," but it all means the same thing.

Most AF-D lenses are AF and AI-s, and work great on manual focus cameras. You'll need to have a coupling prong added for use with the meter on ancient pre-AI cameras.

The D feature has no direct relation to autofocus speed, however as Nikon introduced newer D versions of existing lenses they sometimes sped up the autofocus speed, too. The Nikon 70-210mm f/4-5.6 is an example of this; the D version focuses several times faster than the earlier one. The speed comes from a change in mechanical gearing inside the lens; not the D feature itself.

Focusing speed has nothing to do with whether or not a lens is D. Of course newer lenses are D and newer lenses tend to focus more quickly, but the focus speed is determined by the gearing between the AF coupler and the focus ring, not the D feature alone.

All the newest AF lenses, even AF-S and especially G, are also D. Nikon doesn't bother to mark it anymore.
Click to expand...
 
Managed to find the Nikon 35-70 for £200. It made the decision much easier!
 
I would go for the Tamron for the following reasons.
Nikon 35-70 is a push pull, on a Digital camera this is like a vacum sucking dust into your lens and somehow camera every time you push and pull.
The 35-70 suffers from glare very badly so if you wish to shoot when the sun is out beware and the Tammy dosent
And lastly the extra 7mm on the wide end makes so much difference on a crop camera.
 
raider2727 said:
And lastly the extra 7mm on the wide end makes so much difference on a crop camera.
Click to expand...

This is likely to be the most important point. The 35-70 is an amazing lens for the price you've been able to pick them up but it has a relatively small range and a bit of an odd range on DX.
 
raider2727 said:
I would go for the Tamron for the following reasons.
Nikon 35-70 is a push pull, on a Digital camera this is like a vacum sucking dust into your lens and somehow camera every time you push and pull.
The 35-70 suffers from glare very badly so if you wish to shoot when the sun is out beware and the Tammy dosent
And lastly the extra 7mm on the wide end makes so much difference on a crop camera.
Click to expand...

Thanks, good points made.

Donno what can be done for the first issue you have stated, guess I will have to take cuation with this problem.

As for flaring, well I'm sure that is nothing that a good lens hood can't cure.

I will have the Tokina 11-16 to cover my wide angle.

:thumbs:

When I get the lens I will post some example shots from it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top