Specific Question about buying Used Tamron 28-75mm for Nikon

[supraman215]

There are 2 versions of this lens. One with an internal focus motor, and one that uses the camera's internal focus motor. Which one would be better to buy used? does anyone know if there are any issues with this internal motor going bad?

 

[KmH]

There are 2 versions of this lens. One with an internal focus motor, and one that uses the camera's internal focus motor. Which one would be better to buy used? does anyone know if there are any issues with this internal motor going bad?

Which one? The internal focus motor in the body, or the internal focus motor in the lens.

I have not heard of anyone ever needing to replace an in-the-body Nikon focus motor.

I have heard of Tamron in-the-lens focus motors crapping out.

The issue also has to do with focus speed. An in-the-lens focus motor can usually achieve focus faster than an on-the-body motor because of the difference in how they work to achieve focus.

 

[Derrel]

As KmH points out, normally an in-lens silent wave/ultrasonic/hypersonic focusing motor lens is faster to focus than a lens that uses the in-body focusing motor on the consumer and mid-level Nikon cameras. However, in the case of the Tamron 28-75, virtually every,single user who has had both models of the lens reports that the screw-driven version (the one with NO motor in the lens) is significantly faster at autofocusing. Louder, but noticeably faster. So, that's a bit of unexpected behavior, particular to the Tamron 28-75.

In terms of sheer longevity...lenses without an in-lens motor seem to have a slight edge over AF-S, HSM, in-lens motor lenses when measured in periods of a decade or decade and a half--speaking in terms of anecdotal experience and hundreds of people.

 

[supraman215]

Thanks guys. KMH yeah I wasn't clear enough in my question, now that I went back and re-read it.

Derrel Thanks for clarifying the details of this particular model. I just didn't want to get the in lens motor version used and end up screwed if it broke 2 weeks later when it stopped working. I guess there is still that risk but it sounds like it is relatively low. I used the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 with no motor and it was LOUD compared to my kit lens (AF-S 18-105) and slow.

 

[Derrel]

Well, the 80-200 has a lot bigger glass to move than the 18-105. I bought the 18-105,and my wife almost instantaneously appropriated it it,so I seldom get to use it, but I'm somewhat familiar with how fast,and quietly it autofocuses. Tamron's 28-75 was designed to be a pretty ambitious lens, back when the Canon and Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 models were "king", and so the folks at Tamron put a huge amount of effort into their 28-75 model as a sort of "giant killer" type 3rd party lens. Compared with an 80-200 2.8, I'm pretty sure the focusing group of the 28-75 is vastly smaller, and lighter in weight than that in the 80-200 AF-D tele-zooms.

Both Minolta (and now Sony) and Pentax contracted to have the Tamron 28-70 f/2.8 made in their own proprietary rubber rings and dress styles...that speaks volumes that both Sony and Pentax want to have the TAMRON 28-75 as "their own"...

 

[supraman215]

well this is the replacement I'm planning on making ditching the 18-105 in favor of the the 28-75 f2.8. I'm trading the range for the light.

 

[pdq5oh]

I have the 28-75 & don't feel the auto focus is slow. The images are very sharp and contrast is good. Overall, I'm very well satisfied with this lens. It fills the gap between my 10-24 & 70-200.