new Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC

[dafiryde]

Ken Rockwell says there's not much difference? [/QUOTE]


personaly i found that,
that just did not add up.


- my instincts was at the 16-85 in the begining
- when i was with Pentax i had a 16-50 but needed some more reach, but yet i was able to photograph 99% of my shots with it.
- i am not too displeased with the 18-200 IQ, so the extra IQ with the 16-85 should be welcomed
- tamron 17-50 sounds good - but i am scared of getting a lemon copy, but yet if i get a good copy, i would still miss the 55-85 reach, but yet have faster glass.
choices , choices, what should i do

Dave

[Hards80]

Originally Posted by dafiryde

did some web research and found strange report from Ken rockwell and lens reviews.
both claimed the there is not much difference between the 18-200 ans the 16-85 in image quality.
so i guess this narrows it down to the tamron and sigma

Dave

i would not really pay ken rockwell much attention to be honest.

[dafiryde]

did some reading on the very few reviews there is out there on the Tamron 17-50 vc,
- at least 50% of them was not impressed and returned it
- out of the other 50%, at least 1/2 of them are very pleased , but stress heavily on the price as compared to the price of the Nikon 17-55, which leaves me to wonder if the price had much to do with their decision.
- the balance were pleased with the lens, but had to return the first copy they got due to all kinds of issues, which leaves me to wonder, when Tamron or especially Sigma, makes a lens, do they test it out to see if it is working properly, or do they just pelt in a box and hope the consumer wont return it ?

Dave

[Wingman]

Originally Posted by dafiryde

did some reading on the very few reviews there is out there on the Tamron 17-50 vc,
- at least 50% of them was not impressed and returned it
- out of the other 50%, at least 1/2 of them are very pleased , but stress heavily on the price as compared to the price of the Nikon 17-55, which leaves me to wonder if the price had much to do with their decision.
- the balance were pleased with the lens, but had to return the first copy they got due to all kinds of issues, which leaves me to wonder, when Tamron or especially Sigma, makes a lens, do they test it out to see if it is working properly, or do they just pelt in a box and hope the consumer wont return it ?

Dave

I recommend that you purchasing from Amazon.comwhich has a generous (30 day) return policy. This will enable you to confirm if the lens is a good copy right out of the box. I also recommend doing a focus test in addition to checking the electromechanical features.

Part of the premium that the Nikon (and other Orig. Equip Maker) high end lenses is due to perhaps the more attention to detail prior to shipment; of course the rest is the brand name. I think Tamron's base warranty is 6 years? Between Amazon and Tamron, you should be reasonable assured of a good lens for a reasonble price (a trifecta if you ask me)

[dafiryde]

Originally Posted by TCav

While they both vignette a lot, the Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR DX AF-S Nikkor is a lot sharper, has a lot less chromatic aberration, and has less distortion than the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S DX VR II Nikkor.

Ken Rockwell says there's not much difference?

i like that phrase you used - the Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR DX AF-S Nikkor is a lot sharper

in a nut shell, exactlly how much sharper % wise , would you say ?

Dave

[dafiryde]

Originally Posted by jelpee

I recommend that you purchasing from Amazon.comwhich has a generous (30 day) return policy. This will enable you to confirm if the lens is a good copy right out of the box. I also recommend doing a focus test in addition to checking the electromechanical features.

Part of the premium that the Nikon (and other Orig. Equip Maker) high end lenses is due to perhaps the more attention to detail prior to shipment; of course the rest is the brand name. I think Tamron's base warranty is 6 years? Between Amazon and Tamron, you should be reasonable assured of a good lens for a reasonble price (a trifecta if you ask me)

between the Tamron 17-50 and Nikon 16-85, which would you say will get better IQ between the 17-50 range

Dave

[TCav]

Originally Posted by dafiryde

i like that phrase you used - the Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR DX AF-S Nikkor is a lot sharper

in a nut shell, exactlly how much sharper % wise , would you say ?

The links are to SLRGear.com's test results for each lens, so you can see for yourself. Wide open, the 18-200 is soft, especially in the corners.

[Wingman]

Originally Posted by dafiryde

between the Tamron 17-50 and Nikon 16-85, which would you say will get better IQ between the 17-50 range

Dave

Dave,

Both seem to have equally good performance specifications and judging from the user reviews on Amazon, have about equal ratings. If I were judging based on IQ alone, I would be to lean towards the Tamron only because of the fixed 2.8 aperture which makes it more suitable for low light situations as well as generating more bokeh. Your usage conditions may be different. One other nice feature that has nothing to do with IQ on the Nikon is the ultra-sonic focusing which is quick and quiet. Pricing seems to be about the same as well, although typically OE lenses tend to hold their value better than after market lenses.

[dafiryde]

Originally Posted by TCav

The links are to SLRGear.com's test results for each lens, so you can see for yourself. Wide open, the 18-200 is soft, especially in the corners.

that 18-200 is a great lens, the main problem i found with it is that in order to get good,clean shots i have to shoot at F/11 and above, with that, everything is in focus, and the photo ends up loosing its snap on the main subject .

took a look at those other two lenses on SLR gear, and i think i have figured out the blur unit scale, if i am correct, the lower the blur unit the sharper the lens, and i must say i was impressed that the 16-85 keeped under 3 blur units throughout the F scale at F/22 and below, from 16-85.

then again the Tamron also stayed below 3 blur units from f/4 to f/22.

where as the 18-200 only stayed below 3 blur units from f/8 to f/22

so i guess that did convince me of the difference in IQ.

but the i once apon a time had a Pentax K20D with a 16-50 2.8 lens, and i
- enjoyed the 2.8 of the lens, but often found that at 50 i needed some more reach
- reading about the Tamron , you had to wait for a second for the Vc to kick in, waiting that second to take a picture is what made me run from pentax

Dave

[TCav]

The Nikon 18-200 is one of the best superzoom lenses available, and deserves kudos for the maximum aperture of f/5.6 instead of f/6.3 like most of its competitors. But it's still a superzoom lens, which makes it convenient, but not a good as multiple lenses of less ambitious zoom ranges.