Nikon 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 or Tamron 28-105mm 2.8 ???

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by James Bass, Feb 5, 2004.

  1. James Bass

    TP Guest

    They may be unnecessary to you ... but a great many working
    photographers simply could not make a living without them.

    Similar comments apply to fast aperture fixed focal length lenses.
     
    TP, Feb 6, 2004
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. James Bass

    Alan Browne Guest

    Martin Francis wrote:

    Large aperture, and esp. constant large-aperture zooms are the power
    tools of the pro or dedicated amateur.

    ..They permit the use of lower speed film in lower lighting level conditions.
    ..They provide a sharp sweet spot at lower aperture numbers.
    ..They provide shallower DOF where that may be a requirement.
    ..Usually, in recent years IAC, contain APO glass and appropriate
    coatings to reduce aberations and flare.

    As to "showing off", only the cognoscenti will notice, and they are too
    jaded to care.
    Most people assume my 80-200 f/2.8 is some super zoom, and get confused
    when I tell them it is merely an 80-200. Likewise the 28-70 f/2.8.

    The drawbacks are of course size, weight and pricetag.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Feb 6, 2004
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. James Bass

    Colin Guest

    There are a lots of rumors about Nikkor lenses being made by Tamron.
    There is no official statements about this and I doubt very much
    anybody can prove that. I can believe that there are a few (very few)
    budget/entry-level Nikkors being made by Tamron (the Nikkor 70-300
    F:4.0-5.6G being one of those budget suspects), but I dont think any
    of the mid-budget and serious lenses are made by any but Nikon
    themselves.

    The Nikkor 28-105 F:3.5-4.5 AF-D (a mid-budget lens) is definitely one
    lens that many Nikonians rate highly. It is sharp and has good
    controls of the distortion and its close focusing capabilities are
    excellent. I have used this Nikkor (and still own it). I have not
    used the Tamron F:2.8 extensively but I did have the chance to handle
    it and I honestly did not like its heavy weight and average focusing
    speed (probably because it has heavy glass to move).

    I dont use the Nikkor 28-105 as much as I used to because I now have
    the 24-120 AF-S and I have found this 24-120 much faster and more
    versatile for its focal range, although I have to admit that the
    24-120 is not as good as the 28-105 optically speaking.

    For what it's worth, the lens for serious consideration in this range
    is the Tamron 28-75 F:2.8 Di (this is the lens I use for serious
    work).

    Cheers.
     
    Colin, Feb 6, 2004
    #23
  4. James Bass

    The Wogster Guest

    Nobody makes anything anymore, you can take some glass from Taiwan, some
    metal bits from Korea, some plastic from Malaysia and electronics from
    Singapore, put it all together in China, and add package it in Japan,
    all of it subcontracted through a maze of sub-contractors, the name on
    the bezel really doesn't mean anything manufacturing wise anymore.
    However if Nikon has a reputation for a certain level of quality, then
    it better be there, or their reputation can go downhill fast.


    Considering that Nikon had at least one camera made by someone else, it
    wouldn't suprize me if some of their lenses are made by others.....

    W
     
    The Wogster, Feb 6, 2004
    #24
  5. James Bass

    Dallas Guest

    TP said:
    Oh yes you do, little man. You have oodles to prove.
     
    Dallas, Feb 6, 2004
    #25
  6. I dare say that, given the fine grain of faster films and the low noise of
    high ISO digital SLRs that if all the best zooms were f4 instead of f2.8,
    most working pros wouldn't miss f2.8

    And for those who work in low light, f2.8 isn't very wide at all.
     
    Martin Francis, Feb 6, 2004
    #26
  7. James Bass

    TP Guest


    My information comes from a very senior lens designer who used to work
    for Nikon and still does consultancy work for the company. I worked
    with him on a project back in the 1970s and we have kept in close
    contact ever since.

    Of course Nikon don't want to admit that other companies make some of
    their lenses. They need to protect their brand in order to continue
    to charge premium prices for their lenses.

    Those lenses that Nikon make themselves are generally the best in the
    range. The 'pro' quality lenses are almost all made by Nikon.
    However the mid-range and consumer-grade lenses are a different
    matter, and Tamron have made very similar designs for a number of
    camera brands, not just Nikon.

    The situation is changing all the time with new production facilities
    being opened in China, Korea and Thailand.

    The howls of protest from Nikon fans when they hear that their lenses
    were made by Tamron is nothing compared to the outrage expressed by
    Leica R users about 20 years ago when they found that a certain Leica
    R zoom lens was manufactured in Japan by Sigma.

    ;-)
     
    TP, Feb 6, 2004
    #27
  8. James Bass

    Joseph Kewfi Guest

    I have nothing to prove to you.

    Correction: You have nothing LEFT to prove to me. I've come to realise your
    simply a bullshitter and a faker.
    Your the only photographer I've come across that produces invisible
    photography.
     
    Joseph Kewfi, Feb 6, 2004
    #28
  9. James Bass

    Alan Browne Guest

    Martin Francis wrote:

    I respect your point of view Martin, I just believe that most pros will
    go for the fastest "reasonably priced" lens they can get.

    A reasonable compromise over an 80-200 f/2.8 is a 70-210 f/4. Oddly
    Minolta has discontinued this fine lens. Canon still have it (70-200
    f/4 "L") and Nikon have a f/4.5 MF version. I don't know how well the
    Canon and Nikon offerings are regarded.

    Are you going to use an ISO 200 slide film? I've heard of Velvia 100F,
    but where's the fine grained Velvia 200?

    I'm all for 'light' kit where appropriate, but the larger lenses will
    remain in the pros kit for the immediate future, IMO.

    You are largely correct regarding digital SLR's ... for now. As the
    pix-count goes up, so will the dynamic noise as the site sizes go down,
    to the point where lower ISO numbers will be selected (lowest
    quantization noise error). So fatter lenses will be desired ... it's
    like a radio antenna ... bigger antenna -> higher gain -> less noise ->
    higher bandwidth. digital cameras are no different.

    Last year we had a pj give a presentation at our photoclub. Both his
    Nikons had fat pro glass. Now you could say, "yeah he had it and he
    kept it." and you'd likely be right. But I doubt you could sway him to
    slower lenses.
    At the longer FL's there is nothing faster. eg: at 100mm, f/2 is as
    fast is it gets (AFAIK), and at 200 it's f/2.8, and so on. Faster long
    lenses can be made, but would be very costly.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Feb 6, 2004
    #29
  10. James Bass

    Alan Browne Guest


    TP has never proven anything, why would he begin now?
     
    Alan Browne, Feb 6, 2004
    #30
  11. James Bass

    TP Guest


    Wrong. It was only the advent of good ISO 400 and faster films that
    made f/2.8 remotely acceptable.

    Most pros will carry at least one or two fixed focal length lenses of
    f/1.8, f/1.4 or faster to capture the shots that f/2.8 won't get.
     
    TP, Feb 6, 2004
    #31
  12. For instance?

    Not arguing, just out of interest- as far as I can tell fast zooms are
    largely used by people who stop down as a matter of course anyway.
     
    Martin Francis, Feb 6, 2004
    #32
  13. James Bass

    Alan Browne Guest

    50 rolls of invisible photography per average *week* Joseph.
    Show some respect!
     
    Alan Browne, Feb 6, 2004
    #33
  14. James Bass

    TP Guest


    The vast majority of working photographers, including me, have no need
    of the approval of the likes of you, nor of gratuitous publicity for
    their work on a forum such as this.

    You have shown yourself to be no more than an ignorant, undiscerning
    and unquestioning fan of one particular camera brand. What possible
    interest would anyone have in your views?
     
    TP, Feb 6, 2004
    #34
  15. James Bass

    Alan Browne Guest

    The horse's ass wrote:

    We have no need for your gratuitous slurs on people, but it doesn't stop
    you from uttering them.
     
    Alan Browne, Feb 6, 2004
    #35
  16. Follow up. I sent another email to Nikon and received an unambigous
    answer. However, the email includes a Confidentiality Notice that
    explicitly prevents posting the information on an Internet bulletin
    board.

    Rather than relying on someone's unsubstantiated claim that someone
    else told them someone, you can write and
    ask them yourself. The case number is K451212.
     
    Michael Benveniste, Feb 6, 2004
    #36
  17. James Bass

    Joseph Kewfi Guest

    You have shown yourself to be no more than an ignorant, undiscerning
    You have shown yourself to be a hypocrite and a faker, an opinion on
    everything and not a single photograph to display of anything. You have made
    countless wild claims and have failed to authenticate even a single one of
    them. What possible credibility could anyone place in your views? In short:
    your a phoney Tony.
     
    Joseph Kewfi, Feb 6, 2004
    #37
  18. It seems to me that as long as the specifications are met by the
    manufacturer, and the brand name owner does a careful job of inspection to
    insure that those specs are adhered to, then it shouldn't matter where, and
    by whom the lenses are made. (I presume that the glass is supplied to the
    maker by the same people that supplied it to Nikon when they manufactured
    the lenses in their own plant....)
     
    William Graham, Feb 7, 2004
    #38
  19. I think that professional sports photographers would frequently be in need
    of fast, long lenses. Even as an amateur, I find that I frequently wish I
    had a 400mm lens that was f 4.0 or faster, and I would have one if I could
    justify spending the several thousands of dollars it would take to buy one.
    If you are trying to stop action at a 50 yard range on a football field at
    the long-shadow end of the day, such a lens is invaluable. If nothing else,
    it allows you to use slower, better quality film, and get the resulting
    higher definition picture.......
     
    William Graham, Feb 7, 2004
    #39
  20. James Bass

    DM Guest

    Though I'm a Canon shooter, I've used the Nikon 28-105 and it is
    a very good lens. I've shot with the Tamron on my Canon but it was
    soft, slow to focus and generally sub-par even compared to my
    Canon 28-105.
     
    DM, Feb 7, 2004
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.