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

[viix]

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.

CZ on PnS aren't that sharp.. wait till you try the F mounts for your nikon dslr! :thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[bigbird17]

taken by my tamron 17-50mm. Is this what u mean tack sharp? I dont think so. My pns camera can do better. Focus in this photo was at centre. It doesnt look like sharp at all. Regret getting tamron. :thumbsd: Go for Nikor 17-55mm 2.8 with peace of mind. Nikorr :thumbsup:

look, you are shooting landscape in 2.8? shoot it at f8 maybe and compare. cannot compare like that la..


tot i show u be the photos i toook?hmm... go read up la.. cant test it like tt bro. btw ur colors are super saturated.. normal setting? wad camera sia@@

 

[slooow]

17-55 AF is much faster and more accurate
17-55 has bad "ghost" control
centre sharpness at 2.8 is excellent
good colour reproduction
good for IR photos
built is good and strong
sucks in minimal air when zooming
pricewise is crazy

17-50 AF is fast enough
17-50 has extremely alot of ghost and flare
centre sharpness at 2.8 is good if you get a high qc lense... else can try sending it back.
bad for IR photos has it tends to have hotspots [read from somewhere]
built is plastic-ky and weak
sucks in a ton of air while zooming
pricewise is more sane

17mm on tammy is wider than 17mm on tammy [iirc when testing]

 

[slooow]

btw ur colors are super saturated..

it appears saturated becos everything is already suppose to be green

in fact, i think it is not green enough... i think it has too much yellow in it....

 

[slooow]

oh one last thing.... besides the AF accuracy problem

i usually like to "double tap" my "half press button" to AF twice before shooting most photo

nikkor will give me a 99.9% chance of an accurately AFed photo
tamron will give me a 50% chance of hunting up and down...
and 50% of the time when tamron dont hunt, the photo will still be badly AFed

 

[bigbird17]

it appears saturated becos everything is already suppose to be green

in fact, i think it is not green enough... i think it has too much yellow in it....

yeah there are a tack too much yellow but the greens are really saturated hmm... looks plastic.. well besides the pt. haha lets not ot.. anway ts u been posting ard eh!! still not reading those links they gave u??

 

[bigbird17]

BTW to MRJELLY refer to my reply quote at #42

Re: my tamron 17-50mm not sharp ! help !
ok just tested out few shots in a frd's bd party. b4 that, i tweaked camera setting and sharpness. Now i find that photos are very sharp and amazing bokeh. Now i know more about DOF also. Thz all bro for helpful explanations.

And those of u who thinking to buy this tamron lens....I would say..."Go for it".
Just make sure u test with test chart when back home.

Hereby, I officially close this thread. Happy Christmas ahead !!

you said this on the other thread and now say it isn't sharp?? i am confused really. are yo utaking us for ride or you cant make up your mind?

 

[photobum]

BTW to MRJELLY refer to my reply quote at #42

Re: my tamron 17-50mm not sharp ! help !
ok just tested out few shots in a frd's bd party. b4 that, i tweaked camera setting and sharpness. Now i find that photos are very sharp and amazing bokeh. Now i know more about DOF also. Thz all bro for helpful explanations.

And those of u who thinking to buy this tamron lens....I would say..."Go for it".
Just make sure u test with test chart when back home.

Hereby, I officially close this thread. Happy Christmas ahead !!

you said this on the other thread and now say it isn't sharp?? i am confused really. are yo utaking us for ride or you cant make up your mind?

Since when Big Bird (of Sesame Street) stars in Sherlock Holmes' The Adventure of Mr Jelly's Tamron Problem?

 

[2100]

Furthermore, my pns shoot was Sony which has Carl Zeiss lens that has ability to produce tack sharp pictures.

I'm really amazed with the P&S arena. You know we were all shooting SLRs and most of us don't catch up with the consumer arena.
Last PC Show early Sep I think, my wife said she wanted to help me in my photography, so I got her a $199 Casio Exlim, 7MP....decent freebies somemore got lucky draw. Outdoor took some fun pix. Night took some pyro/fireworks video at Chinatown mid-autumn celebrations.
Was really surprised that in good light base ISO, it can produce such good pix that you can easily print S8R on issue at all, though the corner lens performance sux. The night video was very usable too, noise is decently better than my $700 camcorder. Heck the sound is better than the D90 (I think they put a lousy mic hence 11k sampling, that means 5.5kHz freq response nia after applying Nyquist)

And it has face detection, something which my stupid 2-year-old cam costing 15X more does not have. LOL! :bsmilie:

I am pretty sure next time they will play music and have GPS as well all for 200 bucks....just wait.

 

[sgwong]

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.



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

i want to ask sth...
can the DX format lens use on the FX body?
what is the problem to use DX lens on FX body and the FX lens on DX body?
thanks...

 

[bigbird17]

I'm really amazed with the P&S arena. You know we were all shooting SLRs and most of us don't catch up with the consumer arena.
Last PC Show early Sep I think, my wife said she wanted to help me in my photography, so I got her a $199 Casio Exlim, 7MP....decent freebies somemore got lucky draw. Outdoor took some fun pix. Night took some pyro/fireworks video at Chinatown mid-autumn celebrations.
Was really surprised that in good light base ISO, it can produce such good pix that you can easily print S8R on issue at all, though the corner lens performance sux. The night video was very usable too, noise is decently better than my $700 camcorder. Heck the sound is better than the D90 (I think they put a lousy mic hence 11k sampling, that means 5.5kHz freq response nia after applying Nyquist)

And it has face detection, something which my stupid 2-year-old cam costing 15X more does not have. LOL! :bsmilie:

I am pretty sure next time they will play music and have GPS as well all for 200 bucks....just wait.

which model haha? really that solid? :thumbsup:

Since when Big Bird (of Sesame Street) stars in Sherlock Holmes' The Adventure of Mr Jelly's Tamron Problem?

hmm.. because i am on leave. you didnt see me at marina sq right anway, trying to help la.. cus he say sharp than say not sharp now sharp..

 

[sgwong]

is it because of the corp factor..
ppl will go for 24-70mm for FX body. yes?
coz 17-50mm on DX body with the 1.5 corp factor..the field of view is around 24-70. yes?

 

[2100]

which model haha? really that solid? :thumbsup:

At the risk of big time OT...its this one. Obselete liao, prob trying to leh long hence 199. Small, slim and cute, pink colour somemore, which lady could resist?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Casio/casio_exz77.asp

Sensor cheap lar, good glass more expensive. Its cheaper than the cheapest kit lens man!

 

[geraldkhoo]

i want to ask sth...
can the DX format lens use on the FX body?
what is the problem to use DX lens on FX body and the FX lens on DX body?
thanks...

For Nikon bodies... yes... you can use a DX lens on a FX body, but you will have a reduced MP as it only uses part of the sensor.

If you use FX on DX body, you get what is called a "sweet spot", the center portion, and hence have less viginetting as compared to the same FX lens on a FX body shooting in FX mode.

 

[geraldkhoo]

is it because of the corp factor..
ppl will go for 24-70mm for FX body. yes?
coz 17-50mm on DX body with the 1.5 corp factor..the field of view is around 24-70. yes?

The FOV of 17-50mm on DX is about 25.5-75mm, which is around 24-70mm... so this becomes the general purpose lens, like a 24-70 on FX.

yes... ppl will go for 24-70 FX lens on FX body so that they do not have to switch to DX mode and lose MP on their shots.

 

[sgwong]

The FOV of 17-50mm on DX is about 25.5-75mm, which is around 24-70mm... so this becomes the general purpose lens, like a 24-70 on FX.

yes... ppl will go for 24-70 FX lens on FX body so that they do not have to switch to DX mode and lose MP on their shots.

Thanks a lot. now i undertstand. currently im DX user..only go for FX when master my DX..haha..still long time to go

 

[lsisaxon]

I'm really amazed with the P&S arena. You know we were all shooting SLRs and most of us don't catch up with the consumer arena.
Last PC Show early Sep I think, my wife said she wanted to help me in my photography, so I got her a $199 Casio Exlim, 7MP....decent freebies somemore got lucky draw. Outdoor took some fun pix. Night took some pyro/fireworks video at Chinatown mid-autumn celebrations.
Was really surprised that in good light base ISO, it can produce such good pix that you can easily print S8R on issue at all, though the corner lens performance sux. The night video was very usable too, noise is decently better than my $700 camcorder. Heck the sound is better than the D90 (I think they put a lousy mic hence 11k sampling, that means 5.5kHz freq response nia after applying Nyquist)

And it has face detection, something which my stupid 2-year-old cam costing 15X more does not have. LOL! :bsmilie:

I am pretty sure next time they will play music and have GPS as well all for 200 bucks....just wait.

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.

Ei.. dun anyhow quote me hor! It should be MrJelly and my id is lsisaxon not Isisaxion. I dun use a Sony PnS with Carl Zeiss lens. ;p I'm using Fujifilm PnS.

 

[catchlights]

Nikon 17~55 is my money lens, it does justified every single cent I paid.

 

[slooow]

Nikon 17~55 is my money lens, it does justified every single cent I paid.

:thumbsup: second this...

 

[catchlights]

the only one thing I regret about the Nikon 17~55f2.8 is I didn't get it since day one Nikon make this lens....

I got the 18~70 kit lens instead,
no, don't be mistaken, Nikon 18~70 kit lens also a good lens, for that little price you pay, and yes, I'm still keeping it with me, with my D70-IR.

If you couldn't justify yourself to pay $2k plus for the Nikon lens, get the Tamron Lens instead. it definably worth what you paid for, if you using it properly and not too demanding.