Just saw Tamron 17-35mm F2.8-4 Di

[majere2sg]

at Cathay Photos and was quoted $960.00 for it. Anyone bought it yet ?

[Shadus]

is this a new lens from Tamron?

[goering]

wondering - optically how does it perform vs the 17-40mm f4l?

at this price, i would prefer the 17-40mm f4L unless optically the Tamron is on par or superior

[Jay]

Originally Posted by majere2sg at Cathay Photos and was quoted $960.00 for it. Anyone bought it yet ?

Was also asking for info in the Nikon forum. Konota is selling for $900 and I took a few shots. Couldn't evaluate much as it was taken in the evening within the shop. At 2.8 it looks pretty sharp.

[lhfoo]

Originally Posted by Jay Was also asking for info in the Nikon forum. Konota is selling for $900 and I took a few shots. Couldn't evaluate much as it was taken in the evening within the shop. At 2.8 it looks pretty sharp.

Anyone knows any review on the net btw these 3 lens:
Canon 17-40L/f4, Sigma 17-35mm/f2.8-4 & Tamron 17-35mm/f2.8-4

I have done a lot of search and found nothing useful ...

[HelmetBox]

can I ask what are the situations that need 2.8 at wide on these lenses?

[Shadus]

errr.... none? haha

[hong2]

Originally Posted by lhfoo Anyone knows any review on the net btw these 3 lens: Canon 17-40L/f4, Sigma 17-35mm/f2.8-4 & Tamron 17-35mm/f2.8-4 I have done a lot of search and found nothing useful ...

www.photographyreview.com has sth on Tamron but at $900+ it's quite ex

[lhfoo]

Originally Posted by HelmetBox can I ask what are the situations that need 2.8 at wide on these lenses?

I guess it is only useful for most dSLR. At 17mm, it is only equiv to 28mm ... having f2.8 at 28mm is useful especially on for indoor shots. That is why we have such lens as 24-70mm/f2.8L for film body ...

[Garion]

Originally Posted by HelmetBox can I ask what are the situations that need 2.8 at wide on these lenses?

The 2.8 can come in extremely handy at times. For instance, when u shoot in low light environment e.g concerts or stage events where sometimes use of flash is prohibited, or for indoor shoots, or when u want to minimise the use of flash i.e. use the ambient light to re-create the 'mood' of the moment. Lots of applications for that 2.8 aperture, believe me.

[HelmetBox]

ahhh... the conversion to DSLR makes a little sense. But then at max 1.6x which is about 56mm, is the DEP a little shallow for shoots since you can't zoom in much? I wish to know the applications. Sorry for hijacking the thread. hehehe....

Thanks.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by HelmetBox ahhh... the conversion to DSLR makes a little sense. But then at max 1.6x which is about 56mm, is the DEP a little shallow for shoots since you can't zoom in much? I wish to know the applications. Sorry for hijacking the thread. hehehe.... Thanks.

Agree with your concern on the DEP and this lens is basically to counter Nikon's and Sigma's 17-35. Nobody has any choice until now. Both of these companies have just released their 17-55 and 18-50 respectively. The former is expensive (around US$1200 I think) and the latter is inexpensive and their quality is yet to be known.

I came across a forum in DPreview and someone prefer this Tamron to the Nikon which is cheaper and supposedly better. Take a look.

[numero]

Originally Posted by HelmetBox can I ask what are the situations that need 2.8 at wide on these lenses?

good for night pano-shots. shorter exposure time=less grain and finer details. having fast lens will also allow a wider range of available shutter speed.

[HelmetBox]

Originally Posted by numero good for night pano-shots. shorter exposure time=less grain and finer details. having fast lens will also allow a wider range of available shutter speed.

First, sorry for the unintentional hijack of the thread. (maybe I ought to start a new thread )

Night pano shots as in? I mean if you use it for landscape, IMHO, f2.8 is way too shallow and prob the results would not be that great since its at wide. Isn't it?

[HelmetBox]

alrite, splitting away from this thread to further clear my doubts.

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthrea...535#post542535