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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 9, 2004, 10:33 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

No, the Tamron is full frame, and it is advertised that way, the di just signifies they think it works well with digital as well. The entire Tamron line claims they work well with 35mm and digital. I have been using my Tamron 28-75 F2.8, xr di on my eos 1(ancient film device) and the image is clean and sharp right to the edges.

I have yet to break a tamron, whereas I have broked 2 sigmas (1 burnt focus motor, 1 frozen diaphram). So lighter may be in the plastic materials used in their construction.

NHL wrote:


The Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 is a full-frame (ie larger filter size) whereas the Tamron is for APS-C sized cameras! Same with the Tokina (and why they are "inconsistent quality")

--> Be careful of ratings since the Sigma (and Tokina) could be penalized at the peripherals when reviewed on a full-frame but you're only using the best center portion of this lens on a D70.

The lighter for 'cropped' camera 24-60mm f/2.8 (smaller filter) is more in line with the Tamron... :idea:
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2004, 1:03 PM   #22
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

The Sigma 'DG' is equivalent to the Tamron 'Di' and will work on a full-frame as well even though they're optimized for APS-C... The non-DG version are true full frame
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...m-nov-04.shtml

Quote:
P.S. Reader David Greenberg points out that I've been ambiguous about what the Tamron 17-35mm Di can be used for. It is not limited to APS-sized sensors, and can be used on full-frame 35mm film cameras as well. However, the Di designation means it was designed from the outset with use on DSLRs in mind. Furthermore (although I reserve the right to change my mind once I know more), from what I've seen so far it's not as much of a standout as an ultrawide zoom on 35mm film as it is when used as a short-normal zoom on APS-C DSLRs

BTW there's no motor in the Nikon (unlike Canon) lens. The autofocus is done by the camera, ie the motor is inside the camera! So when someone talks about a lens AF speed that's an oxymoron, a brighter lens will help the camera focus faster than a darker lens, or a wide will aid the camera to focus faster than a tele, but a lens itself has no speed.

Only AF-S(or I) and HSM lenses have motor in them and why they are faster and quieter. :idea:
BTW all EX lenses are metals, and the Tokina is built like a Tank (weight like one too) I have the same one on my Minolta 9Xi! :G
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2004, 1:32 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

Yes, agree!

Was just joking about the plastic parts :G, I've just had bad luck with some brands. I know others who have been using them without problems for a long time.

The only Tokina I have is a 70-210mm FD mount and I think you can use it to bang in nails. They did not skimp on the armour.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2004, 3:01 PM   #24
Member
 
tksuther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 45
Default

I bought a new Tamron 28-75 F2.8 XR Di for my D70 and returned it. I could not get clear focus under several different settings and conditions. I've heard of others with the same problem. Too bad because I really want to get a small, affordable 2.8 lens.
tksuther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2004, 8:33 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 269
Default

tksuther wrote:
Quote:
I bought a new Tamron 28-75 F2.8 XR Di for my D70 and returned it. I could not get clear focus under several different settings and conditions. I've heard of others with the same problem. Too bad because I really want to get a small, affordable 2.8 lens.
True, one of the things I found by reading numerous reviews is all three brands I'm looking at (Tamron, Tokina, Sigma) seem to suffer from somewhat sporadic quality control. Some people have stated they didn't get a good lens until the third return. I'll be keeping my 18-70 kit lens until I know I have a good sample, then the price I get for selling the 18-70 would basically make the new lens a wash in terms of cost.
murphyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2004, 9:02 PM   #26
Member
 
tksuther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 45
Default

Yes, I've heard this too - it takes a few copies to find a good one. Maybe I'll reorder one later. Any other suggestionsfor a small, affordable f/2.8 or faster?
tksuther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2004, 12:04 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 269
Default

tksuther wrote:
Quote:
Yes, I've heard this too - it takes a few copies to find a good one. Maybe I'll reorder one later. Any other suggestions for a small, affordable f/2.8 or faster?
Did you see the other ones listed elsewhere in this thread? Tokina has a couple, as does Sigma. :-)
murphyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2004, 9:08 AM   #28
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Another side note in quality of zooms -> check for the ones which hold focus as one zooms in or out: Most newer zooms simplify the design in order to make a zoom lighter and the focus doesn't hold anymore...
Check a zoom out at the wide and then throughout the tele positions, does the distance ring varies or the focus changes ?

Quite a rare breed theses days:
"Like the rest of the lenses in the AT-X series... is what is commonly referred to as a parafocal lens, meaning when focus is achieved at a telephoto focal length, it is possible to zoom back to a wide angle and maintain focus on the subject."
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...rt=7&thecat=29
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2004, 12:58 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 269
Default

What is with Sigma using nearly identical names for different versions of a lens? That made it tough when I got my 70-300 APO Macro Zoom II because there were I and II versions, plus DL versions instead of APO. With the 24-70 lenses, majority of reviews/feedback weren't very positive but strangely some were quite positive. Evidently the new 24-70 is quite a bit better than the previous version, hence the varying opinion.
murphyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2004, 3:27 AM   #30
Junior Member
 
Chris Combs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28
Default

I've got the 24-70/2.8, and it's not the sharpest lens in the world - but it'll do. Here's a 100% crop at ISO 200 on a D70:
Attached Images
 
Chris Combs 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 10:19 PM.