Reading mode: Light Dark

Tamron 28-75 XR Di vs Nikkor 28 -105 Lens for D100

Go to last post
shudderbug2 said:
Several people have tried to help you and I feel like you've
discounted all of their opinions looking for a "professional"
review of this lens.
Click to expand...
The info that I found on the various forums here was not entirely consistent. So, what is the big deal about asking for a professional review? If that offends you, you must be a very sensitive individual.

Before I make a purchase, I like to do as much research as possible - that happens to include owners opinions and professional reviews. Like I stated in a previous post, NOT every owner has been satisfied with this lens so why shouldn't I seek more info?

And the "several people" that tried to answer my questions in this thread were exactly you and one other person.

Yes, I have looked at your photos - including those of your daughter - but they are on the dark side and just not as sharp as some others I have seen with this lens. I'm not sure what your focus point was but it was not her eyes or her face. That series of photos with that building where you compared the Tamron to the Sigma doesn't tell me much because the foreground of those shots contains too much driveway. How can I judge sharpness/resolution when every one of those shots has so much pavement in the foreground? As for the siding and shingles of the building, there is just not enough detail there. Gerwynn's photos told me a lot more about this lens than yours. I liked the close up detail shot that Gerwyn provided of that bike.

(It was not my intention to critique your photos but since you keep throwing them at me as all the proof I would need to judge this lens...)

--
  • Remember: The camera is NOT your friend! *
 
After testing multiple samples of the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (three) vs. two samples of Nikon's 28-70 f2.8 I've observed the following....( Please keep in mind all major f-stops were tested at three distances under a variety of lighting). In summery:

From 28mm to approx. 45mm the Tamron from f2.8 to f11 was extremely strong in it's resolving power and exhibited sharp images across the frame. At more open f-stops center sharpness was somewhat higher than the edges (as to be expected), but it's overall performance closly matched and in many cases exceeded the Nikon 28-70 f2.8.

From approx. 50mm to 70mm (75), quite severe spherical aberation was evident in the Tamron at f2.8 (wide open) across the entire frame. So much so, that in strong lighting, the effect was that of having a (approx.) #3 soft focus filter. In many true soft focus lenses by various manufacturers, spherical aberation is purposely introduced to achieve a soft focus effect (although that is not the case in the Tamron). Stopping down to f4 does help to a degree, but performance is still lacking. The Nikon in contrast is well corrected in this range (f2.8 and f4) and shows it's superiority to the Tamron. By f5.6, the Tamron primarily overcomes spherical aberation and resolving poiwer is improved to the point where it performs in the same league as the Nikon....where this continues at f8. Color balance and contrast generally matches the Nikon throughout it's range but the Tamron does show a bit more susceptability to flair from strong direct and side lighting.

The Tamron considering it's modest cost compared to the pricy Nikon is a fine performer if one works around it's pronounced weakness at f2.8 and f4 between approx. 50-75mm . To expect it to match the Nikon in all respects would be unrealistic and thats why the Nikon costs so much as it's useful performance extents throughout it's focal length range at all f-stops even though it does exhibit somewhat weak corner resolution in some areas. Keep in mind that although I tested multiple samples of the Tamron, inconsistances from sample to sample is generally more prevelent in independent manufacturer lenses than companies such as Nikon and "your" sample of the Tamron may perform differently.

No zoom (especially wide angle to telephoto zooms) is perfectly consistant throughout it's focal length range and f-stops. Zooms are generally optomized at some point in their focal length range and some optical compromises have to be made. When a manufacturer has a higher price point to work with (such as in the case of the Nikon 28-70 f2.8), then more can be put towards overcoming optical limitations (and compromises).

Lastly, I took a preliminary look at comparing the Tamron vs. Nikon's 28-105 sincelens is more in line (price wise) with the Tamron. Performance of the Nikon 28-105 across it's entire range is more consistant and "even" (relatively) but the Tamron has the ability to exceed the resolution of the Nikon both at it's wide end and when it's stopped down considerably at approx. 70mm. Depending how one plans to use their lens and their particular performance expectations, will often dictate which midrange zoom to choose.

Dave
 
Thank you for your kind words! As a postscript, let me just add to my "review of lenses" post above.....that I didn't touch on buld quality or Af speed of both lenses, just performance. Surfice to say the Nikon with Silent wave is of course the faster of the two lenses in focuses and the heft andweight and build quality of the Nikon is hard to surpass. The Tamron, although slower in focusing does an admirable job since it keeps it's "focusing helical" throw "Short"! This bodes well for autofocing but becomes somewhat problematic if manual focusing if trying to achieve precise focusing. Bulid qaulaity of the Tamron apears to be good and it's smaller size and weight (by a sufficient margin) certainly aids in traveling.

Dave
Bob &rsun said:
Dave said:
Depending
how one plans to use their lens and their particular performance
expectations, will often dictate which midrange zoom to choose.
Click to expand...
--
  • Remember: The camera is NOT your friend! *
Click to expand...
 
Dave,

I am interested, reference your comparison to the 28 - 105.

The two lens set at 75mm at F4.5. How do they compare in respect to what you were talking about in respect to spherical aberation and softness ? are they same in terms ?

Thanks :-)
 
Andrea,

To answer your question in general terms, spherical aberation is generally "overcome" or it's effects are reduced upon stopping down. It does result in what appears to the eye as softness (among other things). At f4.5 (at 75mm) with the Tamron, some residual effects of spherical aberation is still noticable which were very pronounced at f2.8 . The Nikon does not suffer (to a large degree) this form severe spherical aberation at 75mm, so to answer your question specifically, sharpness at this f-stop (f4.5) and focal length (75mm) is close between the two lenses but the image they produce is somewhat destinct for each lens. In terms of shapness, I have found that the Nikon probably produces a more even (relative) sharpness across the entire field at f4.5 (75mm) but the Tamron appears somewhat sharper in the center of the frame with a bit higher contrast making it appear to stand out. Sample variation in both lenses (at this apature), will probably play a more critical role in determining which lens performs better with the specific example you cited.

Dave
Andrea Crema said:
Dave,

I am interested, reference your comparison to the 28 - 105.

The two lens set at 75mm at F4.5. How do they compare in respect to
what you were talking about in respect to spherical aberation and
softness ? are they same in terms ?

Thanks :-)
Click to expand...
 
dave, this is a wonderful evaluation and helps understand how to work around the lens limitations. How do you determine that the cause of the softness you observe is spherical aberation?

Thanks

Charlie
Dave said:
After testing multiple samples of the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (three) vs.
two samples of Nikon's 28-70 f2.8 I've observed the following....(
Please keep in mind all major f-stops were tested at three
distances under a variety of lighting). In summery:

From 28mm to approx. 45mm the Tamron from f2.8 to f11 was extremely
strong in it's resolving power and exhibited sharp images across
the frame. At more open f-stops center sharpness was somewhat
higher than the edges (as to be expected), but it's overall
performance closly matched and in many cases exceeded the Nikon
28-70 f2.8.

From approx. 50mm to 70mm (75), quite severe spherical aberation
was evident in the Tamron at f2.8 (wide open) across the entire
frame. So much so, that in strong lighting, the effect was that of
having a (approx.) #3 soft focus filter. In many true soft focus
lenses by various manufacturers, spherical aberation is purposely
introduced to achieve a soft focus effect (although that is not the
case in the Tamron). Stopping down to f4 does help to a degree,
but performance is still lacking. The Nikon in contrast is well
corrected in this range (f2.8 and f4) and shows it's superiority to
the Tamron. By f5.6, the Tamron primarily overcomes spherical
aberation and resolving poiwer is improved to the point where it
performs in the same league as the Nikon....where this continues at
f8. Color balance and contrast generally matches the Nikon
throughout it's range but the Tamron does show a bit more
susceptability to flair from strong direct and side lighting.

The Tamron considering it's modest cost compared to the pricy Nikon
is a fine performer if one works around it's pronounced weakness at
f2.8 and f4 between approx. 50-75mm . To expect it to match the
Nikon in all respects would be unrealistic and thats why the Nikon
costs so much as it's useful performance extents throughout it's
focal length range at all f-stops even though it does exhibit
somewhat weak corner resolution in some areas. Keep in mind that
although I tested multiple samples of the Tamron, inconsistances
from sample to sample is generally more prevelent in independent
manufacturer lenses than companies such as Nikon and "your" sample
of the Tamron may perform differently.

No zoom (especially wide angle to telephoto zooms) is perfectly
consistant throughout it's focal length range and f-stops. Zooms
are generally optomized at some point in their focal length range
and some optical compromises have to be made. When a manufacturer
has a higher price point to work with (such as in the case of the
Nikon 28-70 f2.8), then more can be put towards overcoming optical
limitations (and compromises).

Lastly, I took a preliminary look at comparing the Tamron vs.
Nikon's 28-105 sincelens is more in line (price wise) with the
Tamron. Performance of the Nikon 28-105 across it's entire range
is more consistant and "even" (relatively) but the Tamron has the
ability to exceed the resolution of the Nikon both at it's wide end
and when it's stopped down considerably at approx. 70mm. Depending
how one plans to use their lens and their particular performance
expectations, will often dictate which midrange zoom to choose.

Dave
Click to expand...
 
Andrea Crema said:
I wanted to gain some more of peoples opinions and examples of
these two lenses. (Other posting have been very informative)

I currently own the Nikkor 28 - 105 lens which I would say in
general is OK. I have ordered the Tamron 28-75 XR Di and wanted to
know if the AF speed and build quality is similiar ? (Is it 100%
compatible with the D100)

Loved to see some more examples.

Thanks
Click to expand...
--The Nikkor is an all around good lens, but not great. It is difficult to tell the quality of the image unless you make a direct comparison with an excellent lens. I compared it to my Micro Nikkor 105 2.8 D and the difference is very noticeable. Still, it is very useful and would not consider selling it.

I don't know anything about the Tamron. I'm puzzled why you would ask your question after ordering this lens, rather than before.

JoeR
 
Hello Charles,

I truly appreciate ytour kind words. Without getting into the technical side of things, spherical aberation can be recognized from other forms of aberations (and distortion) simply by it's appearance by examining the image. Part of this recognition (for myself) comes from years of testing and evaluating optics and through discussions and some training with optical design engineers. Try and borrow a lens that specifically introduces spherical aberations (a soft focus lens for example) or a lens like one of the defocus control lenses by Nikon. You will come to recognize (just one of the ways) how spherical aberation is introduced into the optical path and the resulting effect it has on the image. There are other ways a lens may deficient as to result in a "not very sharp image". It's appearance may be found just in the corners or edges of the frame or an overall lack of resolution. It's appearance through will appear different than strictly spherical aberation. Hope this simplified explanation helps.

Dave
Charles Carroll said:
Thanks

Charlie
Dave said:
After testing multiple samples of the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (three) vs.
two samples of Nikon's 28-70 f2.8 I've observed the following....(
Please keep in mind all major f-stops were tested at three
distances under a variety of lighting). In summery:

From 28mm to approx. 45mm the Tamron from f2.8 to f11 was extremely
strong in it's resolving power and exhibited sharp images across
the frame. At more open f-stops center sharpness was somewhat
higher than the edges (as to be expected), but it's overall
performance closly matched and in many cases exceeded the Nikon
28-70 f2.8.

From approx. 50mm to 70mm (75), quite severe spherical aberation
was evident in the Tamron at f2.8 (wide open) across the entire
frame. So much so, that in strong lighting, the effect was that of
having a (approx.) #3 soft focus filter. In many true soft focus
lenses by various manufacturers, spherical aberation is purposely
introduced to achieve a soft focus effect (although that is not the
case in the Tamron). Stopping down to f4 does help to a degree,
but performance is still lacking. The Nikon in contrast is well
corrected in this range (f2.8 and f4) and shows it's superiority to
the Tamron. By f5.6, the Tamron primarily overcomes spherical
aberation and resolving poiwer is improved to the point where it
performs in the same league as the Nikon....where this continues at
f8. Color balance and contrast generally matches the Nikon
throughout it's range but the Tamron does show a bit more
susceptability to flair from strong direct and side lighting.

The Tamron considering it's modest cost compared to the pricy Nikon
is a fine performer if one works around it's pronounced weakness at
f2.8 and f4 between approx. 50-75mm . To expect it to match the
Nikon in all respects would be unrealistic and thats why the Nikon
costs so much as it's useful performance extents throughout it's
focal length range at all f-stops even though it does exhibit
somewhat weak corner resolution in some areas. Keep in mind that
although I tested multiple samples of the Tamron, inconsistances
from sample to sample is generally more prevelent in independent
manufacturer lenses than companies such as Nikon and "your" sample
of the Tamron may perform differently.

No zoom (especially wide angle to telephoto zooms) is perfectly
consistant throughout it's focal length range and f-stops. Zooms
are generally optomized at some point in their focal length range
and some optical compromises have to be made. When a manufacturer
has a higher price point to work with (such as in the case of the
Nikon 28-70 f2.8), then more can be put towards overcoming optical
limitations (and compromises).

Lastly, I took a preliminary look at comparing the Tamron vs.
Nikon's 28-105 sincelens is more in line (price wise) with the
Tamron. Performance of the Nikon 28-105 across it's entire range
is more consistant and "even" (relatively) but the Tamron has the
ability to exceed the resolution of the Nikon both at it's wide end
and when it's stopped down considerably at approx. 70mm. Depending
how one plans to use their lens and their particular performance
expectations, will often dictate which midrange zoom to choose.

Dave
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I have made my mind up 95%, I have ordered the lens anyway as it takes a week to get it, thought it a good idea to check a few more opinions out before I actually recieve it.

The Camera shop also offers a 15 day money back gaurantee if I am not happy with the purchase.

Dave, thanks for the excellent explanations ! I think I will be happy with this lens.
 
Dave said:
I truly appreciate ytour kind words. Without getting into the
technical side of things, spherical aberation can be recognized
from other forms of aberations (and distortion) simply by it's
appearance by examining the image. Part of this recognition (for
myself) comes from years of testing and evaluating optics and
through discussions and some training with optical design
engineers. Try and borrow a lens that specifically introduces
spherical aberations (a soft focus lens for example) or a lens like
one of the defocus control lenses by Nikon. You will come to
recognize (just one of the ways) how spherical aberation is
introduced into the optical path and the resulting effect it has on
the image. There are other ways a lens may deficient as to result
in a "not very sharp image". It's appearance may be found just in
the corners or edges of the frame or an overall lack of resolution.
It's appearance through will appear different than strictly
spherical aberation. Hope this simplified explanation helps.

Dave
Charles Carroll said:
Thanks

Charlie
Dave said:
After testing multiple samples of the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (three) vs.
two samples of Nikon's 28-70 f2.8 I've observed the following....(
Please keep in mind all major f-stops were tested at three
distances under a variety of lighting). In summery:

From 28mm to approx. 45mm the Tamron from f2.8 to f11 was extremely
strong in it's resolving power and exhibited sharp images across
the frame. At more open f-stops center sharpness was somewhat
higher than the edges (as to be expected), but it's overall
performance closly matched and in many cases exceeded the Nikon
28-70 f2.8.

From approx. 50mm to 70mm (75), quite severe spherical aberation
was evident in the Tamron at f2.8 (wide open) across the entire
frame. So much so, that in strong lighting, the effect was that of
having a (approx.) #3 soft focus filter. In many true soft focus
lenses by various manufacturers, spherical aberation is purposely
introduced to achieve a soft focus effect (although that is not the
case in the Tamron). Stopping down to f4 does help to a degree,
but performance is still lacking. The Nikon in contrast is well
corrected in this range (f2.8 and f4) and shows it's superiority to
the Tamron. By f5.6, the Tamron primarily overcomes spherical
aberation and resolving poiwer is improved to the point where it
performs in the same league as the Nikon....where this continues at
f8. Color balance and contrast generally matches the Nikon
throughout it's range but the Tamron does show a bit more
susceptability to flair from strong direct and side lighting.

The Tamron considering it's modest cost compared to the pricy Nikon
is a fine performer if one works around it's pronounced weakness at
f2.8 and f4 between approx. 50-75mm . To expect it to match the
Nikon in all respects would be unrealistic and thats why the Nikon
costs so much as it's useful performance extents throughout it's
focal length range at all f-stops even though it does exhibit
somewhat weak corner resolution in some areas. Keep in mind that
although I tested multiple samples of the Tamron, inconsistances
from sample to sample is generally more prevelent in independent
manufacturer lenses than companies such as Nikon and "your" sample
of the Tamron may perform differently.

No zoom (especially wide angle to telephoto zooms) is perfectly
consistant throughout it's focal length range and f-stops. Zooms
are generally optomized at some point in their focal length range
and some optical compromises have to be made. When a manufacturer
has a higher price point to work with (such as in the case of the
Nikon 28-70 f2.8), then more can be put towards overcoming optical
limitations (and compromises).

Lastly, I took a preliminary look at comparing the Tamron vs.
Nikon's 28-105 sincelens is more in line (price wise) with the
Tamron. Performance of the Nikon 28-105 across it's entire range
is more consistant and "even" (relatively) but the Tamron has the
ability to exceed the resolution of the Nikon both at it's wide end
and when it's stopped down considerably at approx. 70mm. Depending
how one plans to use their lens and their particular performance
expectations, will often dictate which midrange zoom to choose.

Dave
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Click to expand...
 
Andrea,

I think you'll be pleased with the performance of this lens (Tamron's). When time permits, take a series of "controlled" test shots at various f-stops focal lengths and learn about it's strengths and weaknesses. Then when you go out shooting you'll exploit it's strengths and intuitively

avoid it's weak f-stop/focal length combination(s) whenever possible. All zoom lenses (and most single focal length lenses) have strengths and weaknesses and knowing them helps to get the most out of any lens in use.

Dave
Andrea Crema said:
I have made my mind up 95%, I have ordered the lens anyway as it
takes a week to get it, thought it a good idea to check a few more
opinions out before I actually recieve it.

The Camera shop also offers a 15 day money back gaurantee if I am
not happy with the purchase.

Dave, thanks for the excellent explanations ! I think I will be
happy with this lens.
Click to expand...
 
Just got my Tamron 28-75, I like it. It is better or equal to the 28-105 and 28-70 AFS 2.8 Nikkor lenses in most cases with my D1x. I used the 28-70 Nikkor before, it was so bulky and big, that lens is not for me. I really can't travel with it.

Tamron lens is half the size and weight of the 28-70, quarter the price of the Nikkor. The wide end is very good, even better than my 18-35. This is also my first off brand lens after shooting 25 years exclusively with Nikon gears.
Andrea Crema said:
I wanted to gain some more of peoples opinions and examples of
these two lenses. (Other posting have been very informative)

I currently own the Nikkor 28 - 105 lens which I would say in
general is OK. I have ordered the Tamron 28-75 XR Di and wanted to
know if the AF speed and build quality is similiar ? (Is it 100%
compatible with the D100)

Loved to see some more examples.

Thanks
Click to expand...
 
Dave

I have the sigma 24-70mm EX 2.8 and have found it has very poor flare and ghosting control so it has to go. I tend to shoot sunsets and am wondering how the tamron performs here. also have you comapred it tod the nikon 24-85mm 2.8 and how does it compare with flare control

thanks

Roo
Dave said:
After testing multiple samples of the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (three) vs.
two samples of Nikon's 28-70 f2.8 I've observed the following....(
Please keep in mind all major f-stops were tested at three
distances under a variety of lighting). In summery:

From 28mm to approx. 45mm the Tamron from f2.8 to f11 was extremely
strong in it's resolving power and exhibited sharp images across
the frame. At more open f-stops center sharpness was somewhat
higher than the edges (as to be expected), but it's overall
performance closly matched and in many cases exceeded the Nikon
28-70 f2.8.

From approx. 50mm to 70mm (75), quite severe spherical aberation
was evident in the Tamron at f2.8 (wide open) across the entire
frame. So much so, that in strong lighting, the effect was that of
having a (approx.) #3 soft focus filter. In many true soft focus
lenses by various manufacturers, spherical aberation is purposely
introduced to achieve a soft focus effect (although that is not the
case in the Tamron). Stopping down to f4 does help to a degree,
but performance is still lacking. The Nikon in contrast is well
corrected in this range (f2.8 and f4) and shows it's superiority to
the Tamron. By f5.6, the Tamron primarily overcomes spherical
aberation and resolving poiwer is improved to the point where it
performs in the same league as the Nikon....where this continues at
f8. Color balance and contrast generally matches the Nikon
throughout it's range but the Tamron does show a bit more
susceptability to flair from strong direct and side lighting.

The Tamron considering it's modest cost compared to the pricy Nikon
is a fine performer if one works around it's pronounced weakness at
f2.8 and f4 between approx. 50-75mm . To expect it to match the
Nikon in all respects would be unrealistic and thats why the Nikon
costs so much as it's useful performance extents throughout it's
focal length range at all f-stops even though it does exhibit
somewhat weak corner resolution in some areas. Keep in mind that
although I tested multiple samples of the Tamron, inconsistances
from sample to sample is generally more prevelent in independent
manufacturer lenses than companies such as Nikon and "your" sample
of the Tamron may perform differently.

No zoom (especially wide angle to telephoto zooms) is perfectly
consistant throughout it's focal length range and f-stops. Zooms
are generally optomized at some point in their focal length range
and some optical compromises have to be made. When a manufacturer
has a higher price point to work with (such as in the case of the
Nikon 28-70 f2.8), then more can be put towards overcoming optical
limitations (and compromises).

Lastly, I took a preliminary look at comparing the Tamron vs.
Nikon's 28-105 sincelens is more in line (price wise) with the
Tamron. Performance of the Nikon 28-105 across it's entire range
is more consistant and "even" (relatively) but the Tamron has the
ability to exceed the resolution of the Nikon both at it's wide end
and when it's stopped down considerably at approx. 70mm. Depending
how one plans to use their lens and their particular performance
expectations, will often dictate which midrange zoom to choose.

Dave
Click to expand...
 
Bob &rsun said:
...the photo that you included in your post and those on your web
site, don't seem as sharp as they could/should be.
Click to expand...
You think? I love it. In fact 80% of shots in people's galleries are way oversharpened in Photoshop. I love the level of USM applied to that photo: very natural and no artifacts.

--
Eugueny
 
David are you in Madison AL. some the the images look like here in my homw town.
shudderbug2 said:
I did a search on Tamron 28-75 in all forums and got tired of
reading all the posts and looking at all the examples there were so
many.

With regards to sharpness and focus, if you look at the full size
photos, things like the bush in front of the door, the "Employees
only" sign, the fire hydrant, the woodgrain on the siding, the
sewer entrance and the roof shingles (look at the 70MM tests).

Also, you'll notice that the Sigma appears to be brighter but only
until F/5.6 where they are about equal. The Sigma wide open was
very soft and tended to blow out the highlights (look at the garage
door at the 29MM F2.8 test compared with the Tamron's ability wide
open).

Why don't you look at my pbase site for other pictures (all done
with the Tamron lens).

The ones of my daughter might give you some more insight.

http://www.pbase.com/shudderbug2

Best Regards,

David Anderson
Bob &rsun said:
shudderbug2 said:
If you'd take the time to do a search on the lens, you'll find many
satisified users and examples of it on this site. I've posted
numerous times links to my pbase site when I compared this lens to
a Sigma 24-70 EX lens.
Click to expand...
I HAVE done a search on all forums for this lens. Most people seem
satisfied but I did find someone that was unsure about a "noisy
iris". As for examples, there just aren't that many.
I DID check your web site and saw your comparisons of the exact
same shot over and over against a Sigma using different settings.
Difficult to judge the lens based on shots of that building.
There's not much in the foreground to check focus/sharpness on many
of those shots. It also seems that the Tamron overall produced
much darker shots.
So, I can't help but still be skeptical. In the past Tamron's
haven't been too highly regarded so I'm being especially leary.
I'm trying to decide between this Tamron and the Nikon 28-105. The
Tamron is faster but the Nikon has a longer range. Not an easy
choice.

--
  • Remember: The camera is NOT your friend! *
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
D100 user
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top