p.1 #2 · Tamron 28-75 2.8 vs. Nikon 35-70 AF-S 2.8D for FF
Since no-one has chimed in, I'll only say that you don't hear many folks crow about how much they love the 35-70, where the 28-75 (non-BIM anyway) is generally considered to be a pretty darn nice lens.
I'm a fan of the Tammy, but I shoot on DX. One of the guys at my local camera shop loves his on his D700.
I can't speak to the 35-70 directly or indirectly...
p.1 #4 · Tamron 28-75 2.8 vs. Nikon 35-70 AF-S 2.8D for FF
I found an old thread on another forum just today where several people claimed that the 35-70 was in a whole other class above their 28-75 but I don't know that I would be into the push/pull zoom of the 35-70.
brad
Oct 18, 2012 at 09:39 PM
barisaxer Offline • • • [X]
p.1 #5 · Tamron 28-75 2.8 vs. Nikon 35-70 AF-S 2.8D for FF
I had both and still own the tamron. In my copies tamron was a better lens and when stopped down alot better. i have the older non bim model.
p.1 #7 · Tamron 28-75 2.8 vs. Nikon 35-70 AF-S 2.8D for FF
The Nikon is good but the minimum focus distance was too long. You don't really realize it when you look at the specs because they count the "macro mode". Which means you have to put the lens at 35mm, and unlock a separate ring that puts it in manual mode and basically changes the range. Too often I found myself at the limit of the minimum focus.
I'll also add that the nikon flares easy. I like the way older lenses flare but most people don't.
p.1 #9 · Tamron 28-75 2.8 vs. Nikon 35-70 AF-S 2.8D for FF
I had the Nikon for some years.It is very sharp well respected then. I think tammy
serve you better since the nikon is prone to dust . If you save toward nikon 28-70 2.8d it's even better.
p.1 #10 · Tamron 28-75 2.8 vs. Nikon 35-70 AF-S 2.8D for FF
Thanks, Joshua. I would eventually love to have the 28-70 or 24-70 but it will probably be LONG time since I just blew a lot of money on the D600 and the 70-200 VRII so right now I'm looking for a cheaper option to last me a while. I actually have a 28-75 with BiM that I was using on my D5000 but it's not a great copy.
p.1 #11 · Tamron 28-75 2.8 vs. Nikon 35-70 AF-S 2.8D for FF
I bought my first DX Nikon, using the 35-70 f/2.8d, back in 2004. I always loved the photos it provided, except for the flare that could pop up in certain scenes. It wasn't wide enough on DX, but on FX, it would be much less of a problem. The push/pull wasn't hard for me to adapt to using, indeed, I've always felt that it was faster than the twist zooms. Although I haven't used it in a long time, I still have the lens, because I couldn't bear to part with it.
I can't say much about the Tamron. I had one with BIM, several years ago, and returned it because the AF was glacial. Dunno how the newer copies work in that regard. I know that it's well regarded by many, but for AF speed, I'd think that a used 28-70 AF-S would be a better option. The 28-70 also has a bit of flare at times, but not as bad as the 35-70, that I can recall.
Have you considered a used Sigma in this range? Some users rave about it.
Good luck finding something that will work for you.
Kerry
p.1 #13 · Tamron 28-75 2.8 vs. Nikon 35-70 AF-S 2.8D for FF
Haven't tried the Tammy but I have the 35-70mm AF-D (don't think they do an AFS?) and its a lens that has never let me down. Very sharp, even wide open. Its a lens I use a lot - and I am a pro photograher who will only use top quality lenses.
p.1 #15 · Tamron 28-75 2.8 vs. Nikon 35-70 AF-S 2.8D for FF
I have the 35-70, and I love mine.
Given below is a sample, wide open at 70mm. Not a ground breaking picture. For general family use, I like it. it is a fast lens, and is not very bulky to carry around.
My fullframe use of it was on film(I loved it on film as well), so cant compare it with latest dig 35mms, sorry. Hope this helps in someway.
p.1 #16 · Tamron 28-75 2.8 vs. Nikon 35-70 AF-S 2.8D for FF
DTOB - I haven't ruled out MF glass. I have one MF lens that I was using on my D5000 that I am going to have AI'd but I would prefer to also have an AF zoom in this range.
