| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/21/2006 02:32:45 AM · #1 |
I was kinda curious about the possibility of replacing my tamron 28-75 with this lens as it actually has a true 28-75 ratio when the crop factor is considered. I love my 28-75, but wish it were wider. I have an 18-70 still but want something faster not for the light ability so much (I'll mostly be using a tripod regardless) as for the shallower dof.
Anybody know how this lens stacks up the nikon 17-50, $1100 isn't exactly in my price range. |
|
|
|
05/21/2006 04:33:06 AM · #2 |
| Don't have one but I've also wondered about its quality... |
|
|
|
05/21/2006 04:05:44 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
05/21/2006 04:08:17 PM · #4 |
| Can't help on the 17-50, but the 17-35 is wonderful, if that's anything to go by. |
|
|
|
05/21/2006 04:29:07 PM · #5 |
| I'm loving my 17-50 in the two days I've had it, with nothing to compare it to, if that's any consolation? |
|
|
|
06/03/2006 03:42:28 PM · #6 |
Where did you get your copy of the lens? How much did you pay for it, if you don't mind me asking?
thanks. |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 05:57:04 PM · #7 |
| I got it at B&H for about 450. |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 06:01:39 PM · #8 |
| It looks nice. Does anyone know if any of the Tamron lenses have the equivalent of Nikon's SWM focusing motor? |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 06:21:55 PM · #9 |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 06:36:17 PM · #10 |
| If you're gonna drop the cash, why not get something even wider like a sigma 10-22 or tokina 12-24. This will fill up to your 28-75 and then you would have twice as much range as just a 17-50. Not as convenient since you would have to switch lenses more often but I suppose DSLRs aren't all about convenience. Just a thought. |
|
|
|
06/07/2006 01:03:56 AM · #11 |
Why thanks for your opinion again david.
Message edited by author 2006-06-07 01:04:09. |
|
|
|
06/07/2006 01:08:16 AM · #12 |
| We have a Sigma 10-20 which we love!!! Even more now that we've taken it to the mountians. It isn't cheap but it is wonderful. |
|
|
|
06/11/2006 02:17:36 AM · #13 |
Well, now that it's been out a while...
Anyone? |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 07:36:29 PM · #14 |
I just picked one up on Sat. Whatcha like to know about it? So far it seems pretty decent. Not being an expert in lenses, I'd say this one performs nicely. Of course, if I were an expert in lenses then I might not want to get a 3rd party lens but I find that the less expensive lenses seem to give good sharpness at 1/2 the price and 1/3 the weight.
Actually, this was going to be my On the Beach picture but my entry was more exciting than this one. |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 08:33:41 PM · #15 |
I had a Tamron 17-50 for a total of about 3 days. I sent it back as the quality and focusing issues I had with it set me off big time. It backfocused and was actually soft. Not sure if it was a bad copy, or just the way it was. I wasnt taking any chances and sent it back and bought the 28-75 to replace it. Best choice I ever made. Hope this helps. If I were to buy another, I'd put my hands on it, take photos and look at 100% crops before I bought it.
MattO
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 08:41:34 PM · #16 |
I've had one for about a month now. Seems to be a decent lens for less than half of the price of the Canon 17-55 2.8. Good contrast and sharness. Not the fastest focusing lens, but does a nice job. I don't usually go for third party lenses, but I think I'll hang on to this one.
Two of my last three entries were taken with it.
I've been testing out a Sigma 70-200 2.8 and I've decided to go with the Canon 70-200 4.0 L lens instead.
Good luck!
|
|
|
|
07/18/2006 01:25:38 PM · #17 |
| There have been a lot of quality issues brought up with the lens. Looks like I got a good copy. It does hunt just a bit when you are pointing it at a solid color. Seems to want some contrast. Not sure if that is a normal thing for most lens or not. Just an observation from a quick shoot this morning. |
|
|
|
07/18/2006 01:43:14 PM · #18 |
I got this lense the other day, havent tried it out that much..cause i also just got a canon 60mm and ive been playing with that mostly.
though i might start taking more pictures with it, but im comparing it with the kit lense of the rebel xt...so it should be alot better then that, ha.
Message edited by author 2006-07-18 13:49:12. |
|
|
|
07/18/2006 02:03:09 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by rkligman:
There have been a lot of quality issues brought up with the lens. Looks like I got a good copy. It does hunt just a bit when you are pointing it at a solid color. Seems to want some contrast. Not sure if that is a normal thing for most lens or not. Just an observation from a quick shoot this morning. |
Uhhh? How uniform are we talking?
Last I checked, no lens will focus very well if pointed at a flat surface. Even my 80-200 f/2.8L hunts on my 30D.
Must have contrast for the AF to work properly. Has to do with the AF type...
Is your copy fairly decent for AF on subjects with detail?
What do you mean by quality issues? Where did you hear them?
I've been considering this one quite seriously, but want to wait until the Tokina 16-50 comes out... See if they can get a handle on their CA issues.
I hate waiting through the summer though :(
|
|
|
|
07/24/2006 07:41:35 PM · #20 |
Not knowing how AF worked I didn't realize that it was contrast that was the main mechanism. I only really notice it now because with this lens I'm shooting more items that tend to have large "low contrast" areas. I'm talking a really solid area of sameness. If I have contrast in the the focus it seems to latch on to it quickly.
The quality issues are being discussed in several forums from DPreview to Nikonians.org. I find that when I get the focus spot on (which happens a majority of the time), that the pics are good.
Some examples. The EXIF info I believe is there. Not many at 2.8 but most at 5.6. 2.8 does get a bit softer but once you jump to 4 it sharpens up and I only want to use 2.8 in selected pics anyway.
//rkligman.smugmug.com/photos/83394824-M.jpg
//rkligman.smugmug.com/photos/83393134-M.jpg
//rkligman.smugmug.com/photos/82951778-M.jpg
//rkligman.smugmug.com/photos/82803087-M.jpg
//rkligman.smugmug.com/photos/83400400-M.jpg
//rkligman.smugmug.com/photos/83402874-M.jpg
|
|
|
|
07/25/2006 09:35:38 AM · #21 |
Thanks for the samples R... You've got some wicked pics in there!
Looks like a fantastic lens... I hate waiting through summer for Tokina to get off their butts and release the damned 16-50 so I can find out if it can match the performance. I'd be willing to pay as much as a hundred bucks US or so more for the increased range if the quality was up to snuff.
Message edited by author 2006-07-25 09:35:59. |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 12:18:22 PM · #22 |
I have used both Tamron 17-50 and 17-35.
My 17-35/2.8-4.0, in my opinion, is a big disappointment. It is not sharp at all, and the resolution at 28 mm is worse than my old Nikon 28-105/3.5-4.5. Also the focus is off by 1 inch if I shoot 4 feet away with my Nikon D200 camera. The resolution at the border with my Nikon N80 film camera is terrible. I cannot stand it so I sold it in eBay.
Later I bought both Nikon 17-35/2.8 and Tamron 17-50/2.8. The Nikon lens' resolution is much better than my Tamron 17-35/2.8-4.0 although the auto focus is still a quarter inch off with my D200 camera. Tamron 17-50/2.8's resolution is comparable with Nikon 17-35's at 17 mm and its auto focus is also off by a quarter inch at 17 mm. Though the auto focus of my Tamron 17-50 and Nikon 17-35 is still not perfect, it is totally acceptable.
Conclusion: Tamron 17-35 is bad while Tamron 17-50/2.8 is really a good choice. The only advantage of 17-35 is that it can be used with a film camera.
Message edited by author 2006-11-03 12:20:34. |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 03:24:23 PM · #23 |
SLRGear.com provides some good objective comments about lenses in general. It's run by the same guys that run Imaging Resource.
This lens was given a 10 out of 10 by the reviewers, which from my brief visits to the site, is quite rare. The review is at: //www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/355/cat/23
-Allan |
|
|
|
02/01/2008 02:32:34 AM · #24 |
I've owned the Tamaron lens for about two months now, have had no quality issues and it actually seems to be getting better with age! The Tamaron is a regular fixture on my D200. I also spent some time shooting with the Nikon 17-55 lens. The build quality and the focus speed on the Nikon are better, as they should be for three times the price. However, In many ways I find the Tamaron lens to be more useful. First, it is about half the size, and a quarter the weight. The balance and feel on the D200 is incredible. I also tend to use manual focus and must say, I really appreciate the focus ring on the Tamaron which is uncustomarily usable for a modern zoom. The lens is sharp, though still not as sharp as my prime 1.8 50mm. You'd be splitting hairs with the 17-55. If you're a pro and your living depends on it, I don't think there's a question about the added value, a grand means nothing compared to your job. However, for me, a grand will buy a ticket to Morocco to spend a week making sure I really like the Tamaron. Overall this is not a lens you will risk your life over, but for the price and quality of the output, I don't think it has much competition.
As a side note on build quality - I spent about an hour shooting in a howling rain storm along the CA coastline. Everything was pretty wet, and still no problems.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2008 02:54:18 AM · #25 |
| I've had my Tamron 17-50 since last summer and love it to bits. I've found it very sharp (it does well wide open too) and the build quality is very solid. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/21/2025 05:26:24 PM EDT.
