hi, i will buy a nikon D70, but i don't know if i buy the lens or not. i have a friend that make me a good price for the Tamron AF28-75mm XRDI. i don't know also what is the price for the nikon d70 (the body).
thanks
thanks
nikon AF-S DX 18-70 3.5 vs tamron af28-75 xrdi 2.8
- Thread starter paulosousa
- Start date
- Status
Buy the whole set lar, D70 with the kit lens 18-70mm at abt $2100.
18-70mm in 35mm format will be 27-105mm wide.
28-75mm in 35mm format will be 42-112.5mm wide.
In case you need the extra space, go for the 18-70mm better.
:thumbsup: lens from Nikon at a reasonable price.
18-70mm in 35mm format will be 27-105mm wide.
28-75mm in 35mm format will be 42-112.5mm wide.
In case you need the extra space, go for the 18-70mm better.
:thumbsup: lens from Nikon at a reasonable price.get the kit lens... great for outdoor... + superb value for money
indoor not as great as a f2.8. (Why not get both?)
but if u can live with flash indoors... the kit lens is excellent. :thumbsup:
indoor not as great as a f2.8. (Why not get both?)
but if u can live with flash indoors... the kit lens is excellent. :thumbsup:
between the lenses... i would say optically the nikon is the leader.
but depends on u. On the condition of your shots.
If u know u will be mostly shooting indoors and dislike flash... go for 2.8
If u plan more for outdoors... nikon win handsdown.
or... if cash is not a problem go for the AF-S DX 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED (just recently out)
but depends on u. On the condition of your shots.
If u know u will be mostly shooting indoors and dislike flash... go for 2.8
If u plan more for outdoors... nikon win handsdown.
or... if cash is not a problem go for the AF-S DX 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED (just recently out)
better for what purpose? the answer can be any one of those lens...paulosousa said:
need wider view - 18-70
need to use in low light - 28-75
etc.
Using the tamron 28-75, very good. But if you are asking which is better, it really depends. If you need to shoot WA, then the tamron will not cut it. But generally for my usage, i don't need the WA. I am a fan of low light stuff, so i bend towards big apertures.
Though i have spent very limited amount of time with the 18-70 (i sold it off! ), what i find (together with samples on the net) is that the resolution/sharpness is lower than the tamron, not a nite/day difference but quite noticeable. A "bigger" problem for me is that there is more CA on the 18-70 compared to the tamron. I have done stress testing on the tamron with a crumpled piece of aluminum foil and flash, there really is no CA. If you'd see the samples on dpreview for the 18-70 on the D70 review, you will see slight CA, but it's not a biggie.
Bad things about the tamron, at 2.8, performance is decent but not stellar, it is not on the same level as a EF 24-70 2.8L (not sure about the AF-S 28-75 2.8). Corners a bit soft that wide open, and contrast is only average. But very usable. I have chanced upon a comparison on a south korean site which compared the EF17-40/f4L, 50mm 1.8 and tamron 28-75, and the tamron held its own. If i am not wrong, at some sweet spots, the tamron is even sharper than the 17-40. I have seen similar reviews but that SK one has the most impact on me.
The tamron has a very short range for the focusing ring, so may not be so easy to MF. Made is also lower than the Nikon, the tamron is plastic, but it's good plastic.
Though i have spent very limited amount of time with the 18-70 (i sold it off!
), what i find (together with samples on the net) is that the resolution/sharpness is lower than the tamron, not a nite/day difference but quite noticeable. A "bigger" problem for me is that there is more CA on the 18-70 compared to the tamron. I have done stress testing on the tamron with a crumpled piece of aluminum foil and flash, there really is no CA. If you'd see the samples on dpreview for the 18-70 on the D70 review, you will see slight CA, but it's not a biggie. Bad things about the tamron, at 2.8, performance is decent but not stellar, it is not on the same level as a EF 24-70 2.8L (not sure about the AF-S 28-75 2.8). Corners a bit soft that wide open, and contrast is only average. But very usable. I have chanced upon a comparison on a south korean site which compared the EF17-40/f4L, 50mm 1.8 and tamron 28-75, and the tamron held its own. If i am not wrong, at some sweet spots, the tamron is even sharper than the 17-40. I have seen similar reviews but that SK one has the most impact on me.
The tamron has a very short range for the focusing ring, so may not be so easy to MF. Made is also lower than the Nikon, the tamron is plastic, but it's good plastic.
i just realised my 18-70 stock lens of my D70 keeps getting dust inside the front element.... so bewared! haha.... everytime i leave my cam alone in the dry box for a while the dust will seem to apperer... if it's not too serious i would leave it but it will apperar when i take long exposure night shots at big F numbers or when it's very big and in the middle of the lens.....
dunno why also.... :dunno: the dust keeps getting in....
dunno why also.... :dunno: the dust keeps getting in....
SianZronG said:
Sounds like its similar to the 24-85mm AFS lense. Anyhow, if the dust does not affect the picture then no problem i guess...
SianZronG said:
Brother... the dust is on the CCD, it works like a contact print hence it show on your picture, no lens will be able to focus a dust in the front element.
- Status
Similar threads
