# Tamron vs. Nikkor



## JenPena (Nov 18, 2006)

I'm afraid of buyer's remorse on this one and was wondering if anyone else has an opinion on the lenses I'm interested in....

I'm doing more portrait photography and child photography; I was wanting to get a nice lens just to step up the image quality.

I would love to get the Nikkor 28-70 but it's over $1500, and I'd thought maybe the 28-75 Tamron would be comparable.  But is it?  Would anyone recommend waiting a while to invest more in a better quality lens or have you found that the price difference isn't worth it?  I am getting constant calls from Ritz camera because I'd started to make the Tamron purchase online and backed out at the last minute; I'm afraid to pay for a $400 lens and find out I am going to want the Nikkor in a few months when I can hopefully afford it.  I have the 50 mm f/1.8 that could probably do the job in the meantime, but when the time comes to make the purchase, I just want to know if that extra $800 difference is worth it.  What do you think?


----------



## newrmdmike (Nov 18, 2006)

i've heard tons of people say that sigma out performs and that tamron does well also.  HOWEVER, i myself have never read any such information, and every pro photog i know uses only canon glass, or only nikon . . . they will all tell you to hold out and buy good glass.

what camera are you using?  will it even be able to realize a difference between the two lenses?


----------



## JenPena (Nov 18, 2006)

I'm using a D70 and honestly, I'm new enough at this to not be sure whether it will be able to "tell" the difference - I'm only starting to try photography beyond the standard settings of point-and-shoot.  It's part of why I'm on this forum - to learn from the pros and ask dumb questions!  I'd like to learn more about manual photography and manipulate my photos - it just seems so overwhelming to remember when I'm in the middle of a shoot - and it's easier to let the camera do the thinking!  :x


----------



## newrmdmike (Nov 18, 2006)

personally i would buy the tamron lens, if sigma makes a similar one i would buy it over tamron.

if i had the money i would prolly buy the nikkor though.

have you checked out the nikkor 85mm f/1.8 its only like $300 somthin.


----------



## JenPena (Nov 18, 2006)

I haven't checked out the 85 mm; I got the 50 mm based a lot on people's rave reviews and the price - I've never owned a lens like that and am only just learning as I go, so I've been asking what others think would be good lenses to own - I haven't bought any other than the 18-80 I got with the D70 and am concerned about image quality as I'm doing portratire and event photography.  If I already have the 50 mm I probably don't need the 85; I would still like to have a zoom for events but that's why I'm debating on the Tamron or Nikkor - or Sigma?


----------



## clarinetJWD (Nov 19, 2006)

JenPena said:
			
		

> I haven't checked out the 85 mm; I got the 50 mm based a lot on people's rave reviews and the price - I've never owned a lens like that and am only just learning as I go, so I've been asking what others think would be good lenses to own - I haven't bought any other than the 18-80 I got with the D70 and am concerned about image quality as I'm doing portratire and event photography.  If I already have the 50 mm I probably don't need the 85; I would still like to have a zoom for events but that's why I'm debating on the Tamron or Nikkor - or Sigma?



Nikon doesn't make an 18-80 lens.  THey make an 18-70 (the more likely one you have) that's the kit lens for the D70, and they have a 28-80 lens that's just plain awful.  If you have the 18-70, there is really very little improvement in most of the Nikon range unless you have a lot of money to burn, if you have the 28-80...there is.

AND if you have the money, I'd recommend the 18-200 VR.  Fabulous glass, as well as a huge zoom range.

If you ave the 18-70, I'd recommend buying a lens that significantly expands your range first: either a wide angle like the 12-24 (which Tokina makes one that many consider better than the Nikkor), or the 75-300 (yes, 75.  you have to buy it used, but it's far superior to the new 70-300)


----------



## benhasajeep (Nov 19, 2006)

Alot of people consider 85mm a portrait lens for film work. Some use 135mm. Anyway with a crop factor of 1.5 on Nikon systems. The 50mm will have the same field of view as a 75mm. Very close to the portrait standard. I have not had a Tamron but do have a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 for my Canon digital. I think in normal ranges of the lens it produces a fine picture. Where the cheaper lenses shows their weaknesses is at the extreme ends. For example say at f/11 and 50mm setting it probably matches the Nikon. But as you move to the lens max settings (f/2.8 and 24mm). It starts to show weaknesses to the Nikon lens (I have Nikon 35-70 f/2.8 and 17-35 f/2.8 ). Most lenses perform much better in their mid ranges. I think as long as you stay in the mid ranges you will be satisfied with the results with Tamron or Sigma.

Normally though I do agree with people buying middle of the road items if they don't need pro level equipment. But in your case you want to replace a so so lens with another with better quailty. Assuming the one you have, you are dissapointed in. I say why spend the money on a $500-$700 lens when most likely you will want to move up again. There is no doubt the Nikon will be the better lens. Maybe wait a little and get the Nikon or look at a used one?


----------



## JIP (Nov 19, 2006)

If you are talking about a $1000 difference in the price I guarantee you there is more than just a brand difference between the lenses.  I imagine the Tamron is not a 2.8 or better you can't rally compare the 2 in general when comparing lenses electronics etc. if something is priced significantly higher unfortunately, it is better.


----------



## fmw (Nov 19, 2006)

My own experience with the "off brand" lenses is pretty good in terms of optics.  They don't have the same fit, finish, feel and durability as the Nikkors but they make excellent images.

I'm not familiar with these lenses personally but, if you are buying a Tamron that is about half the price of a Nikkor then it is probably a copycat design and is comparable optically.  If the difference is greater than that, then the lenses are different designs and not comparable regardless of brand.

I wouldn't be concerned about the brand for a lens that will get only occasional use.  I would about the design but I can't comment on these simply because I'm not familiar with them.  Don't be afraid of Tamron, Sigma, Tokina etc because you think you will get inferior image quality.  You won't.  They are good products.


----------



## Alex_B (Nov 19, 2006)

my experience is that at the lower price and quality range off brand lenses are often better value for money ... if you go to the upper price range this somewhat is inverse ...


----------



## LWW (Nov 19, 2006)

I would try to close the price gap and find a good clean used Nikkor for 30%-50% off of new street price. Nikon/Nikkor stuff is pretty durable.

LWW


----------



## Don Simon (Nov 19, 2006)

I'm a little confused about something here... when you say you're looking to step up the image quality, I assume you mean something better than the kit zoom, as opposed to better than the 50mm? Because I don't think any of those zooms will produce a better image at 50mm than the 50mm lens. Primes are just generally better. And is it really worth spending all that extra money for a zoom that only covers 28-70mm when you already have a good 50mm? The 18-200mm has a much wider range, so would be better if you wanted one lens that offered good image quality and flexibility of focal length, while sticking with the 50mm or getting an 85mm prime would probably be the best choice for a portrait lens. Just my opinion.


----------



## JenPena (Nov 19, 2006)

clarinetJWD said:
			
		

> Nikon doesn't make an 18-80 lens. THey make an 18-70 (the more likely one you have) that's the kit lens for the D70, and they have a 28-80 lens that's just plain awful. If you have the 18-70, there is really very little improvement in most of the Nikon range unless you have a lot of money to burn, if you have the 28-80...there is.
> 
> AND if you have the money, I'd recommend the 18-200 VR. Fabulous glass, as well as a huge zoom range.
> 
> If you ave the 18-70, I'd recommend buying a lens that significantly expands your range first: either a wide angle like the 12-24 (which Tokina makes one that many consider better than the Nikkor), or the 75-300 (yes, 75. you have to buy it used, but it's far superior to the new 70-300)


 
Duh, I'm sorry, I meant 28-80 - that's the lens I got with the D70 about 2 years ago.  When I compared the pictures taken with that one to the 50 mm, I was amazed.  For portrait work, I think the 50mm would do what I need, possibly even above as it gives so much detail it might be TOO much for up-close shots! 

I'm actually shopping more for walk-around situations in weddings and with children photography, two things I want to specialize more in.  I will need a zoom for those type of photographs, so I wanted to know what would be my best options.  I don't want to buy everything I see (well, yes, I actually do, but I can't) so I want to buy what I will NEED.  Your suggestions will help me narrow it down! Thanks!


----------



## JenPena (Nov 19, 2006)

ZaphodB said:
			
		

> I'm a little confused about something here... when you say you're looking to step up the image quality, I assume you mean something better than the kit zoom, as opposed to better than the 50mm? Because I don't think any of those zooms will produce a better image at 50mm than the 50mm lens. Primes are just generally better. And is it really worth spending all that extra money for a zoom that only covers 28-70mm when you already have a good 50mm? The 18-200mm has a much wider range, so would be better if you wanted one lens that offered good image quality and flexibility of focal length, while sticking with the 50mm or getting an 85mm prime would probably be the best choice for a portrait lens. Just my opinion.


 
This makes a lot of sense - and is exactly why I asked this question on this forum!  I think I'm actually a little afraid of the bigger zooms because I worry about poorer image quality (totally unfounded by me, but just something I am paranoid about since I got a cheap zoom with my SLR a bunch of years back and was disappointed with it) but I still think I'll end up needing more than the 28-70 and you're right, I don't want to spend that much money - twice.  I just read so many great things about the Canon L-series lens and the Nikkor 28-70 was supposed to be comparable quality wise that I thought that's where I'd have to go.  Anyway, THANK YOU for the good reasoning!!!


----------



## Don Simon (Nov 20, 2006)

JenPena said:
			
		

> I think I'm actually a little afraid of the bigger zooms because I worry about poorer image quality (totally unfounded by me, but just something I am paranoid about since I got a cheap zoom with my SLR a bunch of years back and was disappointed with it)



Your fears are not unfounded at all. As a general rule, zooms that cover a very large range of focal lengths, those with a high zoom multiplier like 10x, tend not to be very impressive optically. They're usually designed to be cheap, and to make a similar zoom with good optical performance at both the wide and long ends (with minimal distortion and other issues) is not cheap, which is why the highly-regarded Nikon 18-200mm zoom costs twice as much as the Tamron equivalent. Lenses like that Nikon are the exception to the rule, and you'll generally be able to tell the exceptions by their much higher prices.


----------



## Illah (Nov 21, 2006)

I use a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (same family as the 28-75) and it's excellent.  Haven't had an issue yet.  Also read up and check reviews of the 28-75, it's considered one of the best lenses in that range, period.  Not just for the price, but one of the best in that range for *any* price.

I'm still pretty fresh to photography, but so far my experience here has been the same as in other areas where I have years of experience: off-brands are often MUCH better values.  They can't compete in terms of reputation or renown, so they do so on price.  It's basically the same gear without the added overhead of a huge marketing and R&D budget.

One thing you will sacrafice is build quality, but that's an amorphous term.  People make it sound like after X amount of time the thing will just implode.  What it really means is that its not weather sealed nor does it have a heavy metal body construction, and no internal AF motor.  If you plan a month-long trip through the Amazon and need lightning quick AF to catch a rare monkey in a tree, then yeah, you might want a Nikkor.  Almost anyone else probably doesn't need that kind of build quality.

And the Nikkor 17-50 is $1200.  I got my Tamron for $450.  Even if it does somehow manage to fall apart in 5-10 years, I could buy a new one with the latest optics and still be saving money.


--Illah


----------



## Illah (Nov 21, 2006)

ZaphodB said:
			
		

> Your fears are not unfounded at all. As a general rule, zooms that cover a very large range of focal lengths, those with a high zoom multiplier like 10x, tend not to be very impressive optically. They're usually designed to be cheap, and to make a similar zoom with good optical performance at both the wide and long ends (with minimal distortion and other issues) is not cheap, which is why the highly-regarded Nikon 18-200mm zoom costs twice as much as the Tamron equivalent. Lenses like that Nikon are the exception to the rule, and you'll generally be able to tell the exceptions by their much higher prices.



While everyone hypes on that 18-200VR, it is still a pretty slow lens (painfully slow when long, I think f6.3!) and while better than the rest it's still an 11x zoom...barrell distortion is an issue.

But at the same time if someone gave me one as a gift I wouldn't complain 

--Illah


----------



## Don Simon (Nov 21, 2006)

Illah said:
			
		

> But at the same time if someone gave me one as a gift I wouldn't complain


Neither would I... I'd be too busy swapping it for primes


----------



## Garbz (Nov 22, 2006)

I just bought the 18-70mm AF-S instead of the 18-200 AF-S VR after I read a review on them. The cheaper 18-70 performed far better in all aspects and nearly all zooms and aperatures. I'll get a dedicated telefocus lens later for sports and nature photography.


----------

