Choosing between Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 on D300.

[luntut]

I dont think its the lens problem. Its most probably focusing issue. Since you took the photo at a slanted view, you can see that the left side of the photo is really sharp. Just that the DOF dint make it all the way to the right side of the photo(which is further away from the camera.

DSLR's design makes it have shallower DOF than point and shoot. You can test whether your tamron has focusing problem by taking the photo of a test chart head on.

he tested before, http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4597812&postcount=42

to me, its tack sharp enough. and that picture he posted of the greenery was taken at 2.8, which can be seen to be having a rather thin DOF. Maybe he still doesnt understand the concept of DOF. or he is expecting way too much of his tamron.

user fault highly likely. :nono::nono:

i will go for tamron 17-50, unless i got enough dough to get 17-55. its like getting levis jeans vs giordano. pride vs practicality.

 

[geraldkhoo]

Here's a shot taken with the Tamron 17-50 at f/5.6.

Here is a crop of her left eye...

I think the Tamron is sharp enough

 

[Six-GHz]

I've used the Tamron lens, comparable with my friend's Nikon. Cheaper, smaller and so much lighter, I think it's not just pride and prejudice, it's cents and sensibility!

 

[lsisaxon]

Here's a shot taken with the Tamron 17-50 at f/5.6.

Here is a crop of her left eye...

I think the Tamron is sharp enough

No offence, but I think the Nikkor 17-55DX is capable of getting something much sharper than that at f/5.6.

My opinion of 3rd party lenses has never been good because they are usually only good after stopping down a couple of stops. My opinion is that if I buy a f/2.8 lens, I want to be able to get good images at f/2.8, otherwise what's the difference between a 18-55 kit lens and the f/2.8 lens other than getting a brighter view in the VF? ;p

 

[Langs]

It's all about "Expectations". When we pay less to get the Tamron, do we really expect to get IQ on par with the Nikkor? Personally, Hell NO! If it really is the case, Nikon's version would have been out of the market long ago.

I am suspecting that Nikon kit lenses have some part to play in this. Nikon kit lenses are pretty decent and produces reasonable images at the widest aperture throughout the entire range. I believe Nikon deliberately made it a point to do so. So for someone moving from using kit lenses to the Tamron, he would have expected the Tamron to produce 'tack sharp' images at f2.8. Unfortunately, that's not the case. I own the Tamron and acknowledge that at f2.8, the images can be a little soft but the images are still usable by my standards.

Then the whole argument about paying more to get the Tamron only to use it at smaller aperatures ie f4, f5.6 comes in. Well, personally, i paid the extra to have the added option to shoot at f2.8 when there is a need and i know (and accept) that the IQ may not be on par with the Nikon's equivalent. Frankly, if i didnt want the extra option, i would have stuck to the kit lenses which are known to be value for money.

Just my 2 cents..

 

[lsisaxon]

It's all about "Expectations". When we pay less to get the Tamron, do we really expect to get IQ on par with the Nikkor? Personally, Hell NO! If it really is the case, Nikon's version would have been out of the market long ago.

I am suspecting that Nikon kit lenses have some part to play in this. Nikon kit lenses are pretty decent and produces reasonable images at the widest aperture throughout the entire range. I believe Nikon deliberately made it a point to do so. So for someone moving from using kit lenses to the Tamron, he would have expected the Tamron to produce 'tack sharp' images at f2.8. Unfortunately, that's not the case. I own the Tamron and acknowledge that at f2.8, the images can be a little soft but the images are still usable by my standards.

Then the whole argument about paying more to get the Tamron only to use it at smaller aperatures ie f4, f5.6 comes in. Well, personally, i paid the extra to have the added option to shoot at f2.8 when there is a need and i know (and accept) that the IQ may not be on par with the Nikon's equivalent. Frankly, if i didnt want the extra option, i would have stuck to the kit lenses which are known to be value for money.

Just my 2 cents..

:thumbsup::thumbsup: Two thumbs up for you.

 

[YSLee]

Photozone's resolution tests show the Tamron to be better than the Nikon. Personally they're quite close. The downside really is the AF accuracy issues. I took the Tamron out for another spin and the front focus issues at 35mm seem to be gone. *sigh*

 

[lsisaxon]

Photozone's resolution tests show the Tamron to be better than the Nikon. Personally they're quite close. The downside really is the AF accuracy issues. I took the Tamron out for another spin and the front focus issues at 35mm seem to be gone. *sigh*

Is the Tamron really that good? I have the Sigma 18-50/2.8 and I'm not impressed at all. If the Tamron is that good, I might want to consider one for casual use. The Nikkor is not one lens which I like to bring out on casual trips.

 

[2100]

My opinion is that if I buy a f/2.8 lens, I want to be able to get good images at f/2.8, otherwise what's the difference between a 18-55 kit lens and the f/2.8 lens other than getting a brighter view in the VF? ;p

Can focus easier in very low light, even with AF assist. There are instances in which 2.8 would not really focus but my 1.4 stuff can pull it through. (bracketed for extra insurance)

I have shot well into 6-digit numer of frames with both the 28-75 and 17-50/2.8, at f2.8 a sharp copy is ok enough to print 18x12 if you don't view within 12 inches. But then so far I have printed less than 500pcs of 18x12 size, so I still would reserve my comments. LOL! Its definitely not tack sharp, but all the S8R I did is definitely no issue.

For rough use, the plastic body/hood will crack and break, I have gone through 2 Tamrons. A L lens or Nikon pro AF-S will break too. Even for flash I have gone through 4 already, so seriously speaking anything will break with enough wear/tear.

 

[geraldkhoo]

No offence, but I think the Nikkor 17-55DX is capable of getting something much sharper than that at f/5.6.

My opinion of 3rd party lenses has never been good because they are usually only good after stopping down a couple of stops. My opinion is that if I buy a f/2.8 lens, I want to be able to get good images at f/2.8, otherwise what's the difference between a 18-55 kit lens and the f/2.8 lens other than getting a brighter view in the VF? ;p

No offense taken I know personally that the Nikon 17-55 is a better lens all round, compared to the Tamron 17-50. For me, it is a price/performance ratio that I am looking at. I personally cannot afford all the best lenses, so I look for what performs best at the price it is at.

Based on photozone.de, the Tamron 17-50 has a price/performance of 5 stars, and the Nikon 17-55 has a price/performance of 2 stars. Personally, I'd rather go for the Tamron in this situation.

 

[Daedalus Trent]

My opinion is that if I buy a f/2.8 lens, I want to be able to get good images at f/2.8, otherwise what's the difference between a 18-55 kit lens and the f/2.8 lens other than getting a brighter view in the VF? ;p

Agreed. But it depends on your mindset


I treat my Sigma 70-200 like an f3.5 lens :bsmilie: But the fact is, it's waay cheaper than Canon's 70-200 f4

 

[jnet6]

I assume you have tried out both lenses and read the reviews by our users here.

If budget is not a problem, i rather go for 17-55 with a peace of mind.

17-50, you have to spend lots of time and test out the lens till you are satisfied with the quality.

 

[YSLee]

Is the Tamron really that good? I have the Sigma 18-50/2.8 and I'm not impressed at all. If the Tamron is that good, I might want to consider one for casual use. The Nikkor is not one lens which I like to bring out on casual trips.

Never trusted Sigma lenses.

The Tamron's pretty good optically, but like I said, the AF issues are not trivial. No matter how sharp a lens is, having the focus off robs a lot of resolution. I'm still wondering what to do with my 17-50.

Basically, this is what I got when I teste my 17-50 on a target chart at a ~70cm distance:

17-24mm: Slight back focus
35mm: Slight front focus
50mm: Severe back focus (+20 on the D300's AF adjust is barely enough)

Of course strange enough when I got the lens new in HK I got really nice and sharp photos of the food.

I'll probably go test my copy at different focus distances to see if the problem varies with distance as well.

 

[lsisaxon]

Never trusted Sigma lenses.

The Tamron's pretty good optically, but like I said, the AF issues are not trivial. No matter how sharp a lens is, having the focus off robs a lot of resolution. I'm still wondering what to do with my 17-50.

Basically, this is what I got when I teste my 17-50 on a target chart at a ~70cm distance:

17-24mm: Slight back focus
35mm: Slight front focus
50mm: Severe back focus (+20 on the D300's AF adjust is barely enough)

Of course strange enough when I got the lens new in HK I got really nice and sharp photos of the food.

I'll probably go test my copy at different focus distances to see if the problem varies with distance as well.

Actually I never trusted Tamron since the Adaptall days.. ;p

Hmm... front/back focus issues... sigh.. Think I'll probably just stick with Nikon. It's hard to correct when the severity varies with the focal length.. No matter how good the lens may be, once you get this issue cropping up, it's as good as unuseable.

 

[MrJelly]

See...not only me...but all others also saying Tamron :thumbsd:

:bsmilie:

 

[YSLee]

I'm thinking if it's anything to do with the built-in motor. Personally I'd have very much preferred the screw-driven version...

 

[2100]

Funny thing is that the first copy I tested at Alan Photo - SLS it was already sharp @ 2.8. Fug any price, grabbed it and go. :bsmilie:
My Sigma 30 f1.4 at the same shop also sharp with the first copy.
And they are sharp across my 3 bodies.

Bring your notebook + card reader along man.

This topic is like beating a dead horse, do a search and see how many times it surfaced here and in forums all over the world.

But seriously from what I see in the local galleries, my personal advice is still that coz photography is an artform, spend more time & energy into the pictures + PP.

If you wanna have tokong pix, try specialised primes. It will force you to shoot differently and with discipline. 1 shot 1 kill is not difficult with practice....don't anyhow shoot like machine gun.

 

[Yapster]

Then the whole argument about paying more to get the Tamron only to use it at smaller aperatures ie f4, f5.6 comes in. Well, personally, i paid the extra to have the added option to shoot at f2.8 when there is a need and i know (and accept) that the IQ may not be on par with the Nikon's equivalent. Frankly, if i didnt want the extra option, i would have stuck to the kit lenses which are known to be value for money.

Couldn't agree better. I shot 2 events using Nikkor 18-135 f3.5-5.6 and Tamron 17-50f2.8.

Though i get the bokeh with the tamron lens, but the colours and details were really way off compare to the nikkor kit lens. At least for me. (or i not good in using it.)

Sold it after the wedding shoot.(pretty pissed cos i spend 2 weeks to recover the shots...:sweat.

No offense taken I know personally that the Nikon 17-55 is a better lens all round, compared to the Tamron 17-50. For me, it is a price/performance ratio that I am looking at. I personally cannot afford all the best lenses, so I look for what performs best at the price it is at.

Based on photozone.de, the Tamron 17-50 has a price/performance of 5 stars, and the Nikon 17-55 has a price/performance of 2 stars. Personally, I'd rather go for the Tamron in this situation.

Yes, this part i agree as well. It depends on how often you use this mid range. And also the plan for FF later on.

I personally cannot justify spending 1.8k-2k (for new piece now is it?) on the 17-55 f2.8 when i can top up a bit more for the 24-70 f2.8.

TS, unless you are very very sure you want to stay in DX for a long time or at least you will be keeping your DX body for a long time or you use it for a living, then i would say go for the 17-55 f2.8 for a peace of mind or get a 2nd hand one.

If not, the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 should suffice for the time being la.

Like my friend say, DX and FX is just a format.

But FX is poisonous.;p

 

[2100]

Well another solution is to get the tamron, and then rent the Nikon. Then rent some primes. Shoot with both and see which feels better. I'd bet that if you have shot with good primes and want to get your pix to have a certain signature, you will find that the diff between the Nikon and Tamron is actually not great in real life.

Anyway, bro MrJelly's post on the "fuzzy" picture with the green foilage reminds me of a FAQ that I always bother explain to my wedding clients during discussion + T&Cs. "There are some pictures which are supposed to look fuzzy, I hope you have no issue with that"....and then I show them samples. There ARE a small group people who cannot appreciate that thin DOF bokeh look because they are too accustomed to P&S. LOL! There are also people who take issue with a warmish tone for wedding banquet pictures (they expect the ballroom to look whitish, when in real life it is not). Some PG enthusiasts also expect so-called tack sharp results, I show them the 12x18 samples, and they are shocked to find that some are done with a 6MP D70. Geez...even with film MF my 12x15 wedding album pix did not look that sharp for outdoors - but they are nice.

 

[MrJelly]

Well another solution is to get the tamron, and then rent the Nikon. Then rent some primes. Shoot with both and see which feels better. I'd bet that if you have shot with good primes and want to get your pix to have a certain signature, you will find that the diff between the Nikon and Tamron is actually not great in real life.

Anyway, bro MrJelly's post on the "fuzzy" picture with the green foilage reminds me of a FAQ that I always bother explain to my wedding clients during discussion + T&Cs. "There are some pictures which are supposed to look fuzzy, I hope you have no issue with that"....and then I show them samples. There ARE a small group people who cannot appreciate that thin DOF bokeh look because they are too accustomed to P&S. LOL! There are also people who take issue with a warmish tone for wedding banquet pictures (they expect the ballroom to look whitish, when in real life it is not). Some PG enthusiasts also expect so-called tack sharp results, I show them the 12x18 samples, and they are shocked to find that some are done with a 6MP D70. Geez...even with film MF my 12x15 wedding album pix did not look that sharp for outdoors - but they are nice.

thz ya..i think i'm just too used to pns pictures. :bsmilie: Furthermore, my pns shoot was Sony which has Carl Zeiss lens that has ability to produce tack sharp pictures.