Whic lens would you choose ?

[goodguy]

I was planing on getting the

Tamron SP 28-75mm f/2.8

When I found another lens close in performance and price

Nikon 24-85 F/3.5-4.5g Ed Vr

The tamron has faster lens while the Nikon is original Nikon and has the VR II system

So which one would you choose ?

I need these les for all around normal use.

 

[PropilotBW]

I have debated these types of questions in the past. I settled on Nikon lenses versus other brandes for quality of glass, workmanship, and the kicker was resale value. I see you're shooting DX. If you ever want to upgrade to FX, you're going to get a lot more money for your Nikkor lenses. If you have no intentions of ever upgrading to full frame, It's still a toss up. F/2.8 is definitely something to consider...

 

[goodguy]

I have debated these types of questions in the past. I settled on Nikon lenses versus other brandes for quality of glass, workmanship, and the kicker was resale value. I see you're shooting DX. If you ever want to upgrade to FX, you're going to get a lot more money for your Nikkor lenses. If you have no intentions of ever upgrading to full frame, It's still a toss up. F/2.8 is definitely something to consider...

I want to keep my lenses, I plan to move to FF body in the future but these two lenses are both designed for FF body.

 

[Mike_E]

If you're going to shoot fast moving objects in low light get as fast a lens as you can.

If not then go for the VR.

 

[Patrice]

I'd go for a fixed aperture zoom of modest range as opposed to a longer range variable aperture lens. Some would argue that VR in a mid zoom is not really needed. I'd agree with that since my only lens with vr is my 70 to 200 f/2.8. My 28-70 f/2.8 does not have it nor do any of my primes. I don't miss VR in these lenses since i've never had it. With decent technique your keeper rate will be better as a slack technique with vr lenses.

 

[jenko]

I have the Nikon 24-85. My review of this lens is not very positive. It has some of the worst vignetting I have ever seen. It is decently sharp, but nothing to write home about.

I would not buy it again. In fact, I am thinking about getting rid of it ... Are you interested? lol

 

[goodguy]

Thank you all for the feedback, as always some like and some less.
Found a Nikon 24-85 for so cheap that if I will not like it I know I can sell it for more then I hope to buy it tomorrow so I cant loose here.
Usualy for me I cant see the differences in the results of most basic lens and best lens, I simply dont have the minimum level even to see it so I think the basic lenses will be fine for now.
In the future after I will get a FF camera if I decide the lens is no good for me anymore I will simply get a better one.

 

[djacobox372]

I have debated these types of questions in the past. I settled on Nikon lenses versus other brandes for quality of glass, workmanship, and the kicker was resale value. I see you're shooting DX. If you ever want to upgrade to FX, you're going to get a lot more money for your Nikkor lenses. If you have no intentions of ever upgrading to full frame, It's still a toss up. F/2.8 is definitely something to consider...

This is only true (somewhat) when comparing apples to apples, but in this case you're not. The tamron would be considered a 3rd party "PRO" lens, and the nikon is a 1st party consumer lens. 3rd party pro lenses will have more resale value than 1st party consumer lenses.

The tamron 2.8 is the way to go, if you can't afford a nikon 2.8.