Does anyone have opinions about this Tamron lens? - 1

So I'm looking for a new lens for my Nikon d3100. I was suggested by multiple people on here to get the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8.It looks like a pretty solid lens, but I'd like to get some of your guy's opinions. If you've used this lens, what do you have to say about it, pros and cons?

Thanks!

Added (1). If you didn't like it, what would you suggest?

If you are just using your camera as a hobby, then any generic lens is just fine.

Most advanced amateur photographers would rather buy a used Nikkor lens than a new generic.

Personally, I wouldn't- even though I'm fond of the focal range using a crop-sensor camera, and the constant f/2.8 aperture. This lens is one of Tamron's early lenses, made for full frame, and is of a dated design, like it's early 17-50mm f/2.8 for crop cameras, I just did not care for the feel of either lens. Plus 24mm is better than 28 for the crop, which was another reason I didn't care for this lens. It may not seem like much, but it translates into a 6mm difference at the wide end, which is pretty noticeable. Tamron just came out with a 24-70mm f/2.8 VC. I went to a camera show at a local shop this past weekend and played around with it and it blows their 28-70 away, plus VC is pretty trick. Though it may seem like you're getting a deal, the 28-70 is $500 compared to the 24-70 VC is $1300, my opinion is to wait and buy the better lens.

The general rule is to buy lenses from the same brand as your camera's. Only when you can't afford the original do you go to third-party brands. Tamron is one third-party lens maker that produces lenses with poorer optics and build quality but should do if you really need a lens that badly.

I've used Tamron lenses although not this particular one. I found them sloppy and less durable than Nikon, Canon, Mamiya, Pentax and Sigma lenses. I didn't like the optics-it showed distortion and lack of contrast and crispness, and I didn't care for the range or speed of the lenses, and the one I bought broke within two years-the only lens I've ever owned that ceased to function. But then I'm pretty picky-if you can't afford something better right now and absolutely can't afford to wait, under those circumstances you might be more satisfied with it than I was with mine.

Edit: Sorry, as much as I dissed Tamron I should have talked about what I'd prefer. I'd always suggest a Nikon lens to go with a Nikon camera, it is the optics that price the Nikon higher than most of its competition, so why pay a premium for a Nikon body and then skip the best part of the camera if you can swing the deal? I've used a bunch of good Nikon lenses, but the best one I ever had in this range was the F2.8 D 28-80. The constant aperature across the focal range was great and the 'D' coating was clearly superior to a comparable lens by Canon, and the Canon lens was darned good. I bought the lens a long time ago and haven't kept up on the new stuff though, so my information may be dated. At the time I bought it, it was around $800, about a $200 premium at the time I would guess, and worth every penny. As a fallback position, I'd buy a Sigma before I'd get a Tamron. Much better optics and overall performance in my opinion.