Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 19, 2010, 4:40 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 114
Default Nikkor 85mm 1.8, 35mm 1.8 or Tamron 28-75 2.8

As some of you might have read my earlier posts, I tried a 30mm sigma 1.4 and it had the front focusing issue so that made me return it and scratch sigma completely off my list. Its quite expensive too I might add.

So now I'm in a dilemma. I don't want to spend too much but will if its worth the money (I don't have it now but I could save up over time) - which I think is a better idea than having the money right now and the urge to spend it if that makes any sense

Anyways what do you think is better for mainly shots across a dinner table, low light, portraits, street photography and the occasional landscape. I don't need very wide lenses but I want a nice pronounced bokeh behind the subjects.

Can the tamron 28-75 cover all my needs or should I get a Nikkor 85mm 1.8 and a 35mm 1.8.

Thank you.
__________________
I shoot through a Nikkor 18-200mm VR lens on a Nikon D90 and an SB-600.
Lilacfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 19, 2010, 5:00 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Personally, I don't think any one of those lenses will do all of those things ... except the "low light" part.

And I don't think because you had one bad experience with one copy of one lens, it's a good enough reason to abandon the idea of ever buying anything from that manufacturer ever again.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 19, 2010, 5:35 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,093
Default

An 85mm prime would be impractical for most of your needs -- on an APS-C body you'll need a fair amount of room just to get more than someone's nose in the photo. I have and love the 35mm f/1.8 for general purposes. It isn't the world's greatest bokeh, but it is a very versatile lens and is a real light sponge. It seems like you can shoot in the dark with it. I use it for all the purposes that you indicate, but you may find it on the limiting side. I was brought up using a 50mm lens on a 35mm film camera, so this is how I learned to see the world through a viewfinder.

I don't have the Tamron, but I have been intrigued by it. It is said to be very sharp (as are most Tamron lenses. I have the 90mm f/2.8, and am mostly pleased with it. It is the sharpest lens I own.) The focusing on this lens is said to be iffy, especially in low light. And really, for low light you would like more than f/2.8 anyway. It is better than a kit lens in that regard, but f/2 or less seems like the magic number to me for comfort in low light. I have also found my Tamron to be more prone to axial CA when shooting backlit objects than any other lens I have (my other lenses are Nikon or Tokina). From what I've been able to garner from what I've read, this is a common failing of Tamron lenses. In all fairness, that is a worst-case scenario for CA and CA can be removed in PP if you put in the time, but it is worth recognizing the failings of a lens mfr before you buy. But Tamron is really good at making sharp lenses on a budget. If you value that aspect highly, they are good lenses to seriously consider. And that 28-75 range is really useful, and would cover what you want to shoot. My 90 has the nicest creamy bokeh of any lens I own. I know that is lens-specific, so this Tamron may not be in the same league that way. But Tamron is certainly capable of delivering on such things.

Last edited by tclune; Dec 20, 2010 at 8:54 AM.
tclune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2011, 3:29 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,974
Default

I have all three. I like the 35mm 1.8 the best due to its focal length and its quick and quiet focus speed. Decent sharpness even at 1.8. I find the 85mm 1.8 to be the best optically though and I do think of it as a very good candid and portrait lens. The Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 is a decent lens but it soft at 2.8. It has the most range of the other two obviously so it is much more convenient. I also have the Nikon 28mm 2.8 and it gives better color and sharpness at 2.8 than the Tamron. This is with the settings being the same and straight out of the camera.

With PP applied you will get great images from any of these lenses.

Last edited by vIZnquest; Jan 1, 2011 at 9:55 PM.
vIZnquest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2011, 12:59 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 114
Default

Well I got the 35mm and I'm so impressed with it, that I'm debating selling my 18-105mm zoom to partly finance a 85mm 1.8 and then exclusively shooting primes.

Opinions? I really haven't used the zoom in over 2 weeks.
__________________
I shoot through a Nikkor 18-200mm VR lens on a Nikon D90 and an SB-600.
Lilacfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2011, 8:45 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,093
Default

It's easy to be misled about how "right" primes are by one that is a 50mm equivalent lens. That is the heart of the sweet spot for the way that people see the world -- the perspective is pretty much how we normally see the world. I use the 35mm as my walking around lens for just that reason. But, when I want to go wide or long, I tend to revert to a zoom. The reason is that, when I leave that sweet spot, there's not a clear perspective that trumps any other. So I may fiddle with different focal lengths before I decide on how I want to take the photo. It's easy to know that you want to go long or go wide, but after that all bets are off.

Maybe I am less insightful than most photographers that way, and it may be that you really would know just how you wanted the perspective expanded or foreshortened, and one focal length would do for each end. But I doubt it. I would say keep the zoom for general use outside the nifty fifty focal length, and consider if there are particular focal lengths beyond that that you routinely use and might want to supplement your lens collection with. FWIW, my only other prime at this point is a 90mm lens. It does both portrait and macro, and is useful for each. But I use my WA and tele zooms about as frequently as I use that prime.
tclune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2011, 11:13 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,974
Default

I agree with tclune. Stick with what you have right now. I now find that I prefer my three lens approach which works for me. I have the Nikon 18-55mm VR, Nikon 35mm 1.8 and the Tamron 70-300mm VC. I pretty much have everything covered that I want to shoot when I have no specific agenda in mind. I always carry a speedlight as well.
vIZnquest is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:55 AM.