Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Nikon Lenses (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/nikon-lenses-62/)
-   -   Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 VC Review on PhotoZone.de (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/nikon-lenses-62/tamron-af-17-50mm-f-2-8-vc-review-photozone-de-165540/)

TCav Jan 31, 2010 1:28 PM

Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 VC Review on PhotoZone.de
 
See http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/482-tamron_1750_28vc_canon

I think it's a disappointment for those familiar with the non-VC version. It's not nearly as sharp, especially at the edges and has a lot more distortion and vignetting.

I'm disappointed.

Hards80 Jan 31, 2010 1:32 PM

yea, i saw that the other day, i was surprised and disappointed as well.

more and more i am leaning towards the new sigma 17-70 with OS.

TCav Jan 31, 2010 1:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hards80 (Post 1046574)
more and more i am leaning towards the new sigma 17-70 with OS.

I'll let you know which way I'm leaning when I see test results on that one.

dafiryde Feb 1, 2010 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCav (Post 1046572)
See http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/482-tamron_1750_28vc_canon

I think it's a disappointment for those familiar with the non-VC version. It's not nearly as sharp, especially at the edges and has a lot more distortion and vignetting.

I'm disappointed.

:doh: i'm glad, that i took the Nikon 17-55, even though i did not try the Tamron vc
it's really a great lens

Dave

TCav Feb 2, 2010 9:25 AM

Yes, the Nikon 17-55/2.8 is nice, but I'm aching for a stabilized solution. I used to have the unstabilized Tamron 17-50/2.8 on my stabilized KM5D, and liked it a lot. For my new D90, I was hoping that the stabilized Tamron 17-50/2.8 would be nearly as good.

NHL Feb 2, 2010 11:17 AM

Actually the Tamron non-VC is quite good ! ;)
This lens outperforms the Nikon 17-55 in almost every parameters, especially in sharpness (and so does the wider Tokina 16-50 f/2.8):
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikko...review?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikko...review?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikko...report?start=1


They may not have AF-s, hence the $ saving, but they are super fast in AF because of their short gearing at least on my D300...

-> This MTF for the VC version was based on a Canon, so we'll have to wait and see when they'll test a Nikon version :cool:

TCav Feb 2, 2010 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NHL (Post 1047287)
Actually the Tamron non-VC is quite good ! ...

Yes. I had one for my Konica Minolta and was very pleased with it. But I had high hopes for the VC version for my Nikon, and that didn't work out.

NHL Feb 2, 2010 2:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCav (Post 1047290)
Yes. I had one for my Konica Minolta and was very pleased with it. But I had high hopes for the VC version for my Nikon, and that didn't work out.

-> If you've kept the Sony then you would have the best of both world as the VR is built-into the camera and the Tamron without VC is superb... ;)

TCav Feb 2, 2010 3:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NHL (Post 1047361)
-> If you've kept the Sony then you would have the best of both world as the VR is built-into the camera and the Tamron without VC is superb... ;)

Actually, a major reason for switching from the Konica Minolta was because the image stabilization stopped working. :(

Some lucky eBayer now has my Tamron 17-50/2.8.

dafiryde Feb 2, 2010 3:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCav (Post 1047250)
Yes, the Nikon 17-55/2.8 is nice, but I'm aching for a stabilized solution. I used to have the unstabilized Tamron 17-50/2.8 on my stabilized KM5D, and liked it a lot. For my new D90, I was hoping that the stabilized Tamron 17-50/2.8 would be nearly as good.

\

i myself leaned heavily towards the VC
on my last visit to the U.S , my intencions was on getting the 16-85,
but when Pitman saw that i already owned the 18-200, he convinced me that , that was not much of a trade up, hence the reason i came back home with the 17-55.
i have not really gotten much chance since to try it out, but with Carnival season coming up, it will get a good testing.
as for not having VR, Pitman was right, one does not really need VR for that focal length.
as for weight that many complained about, it is really not that heavy.
as for sharpness, i must have gotten a good copy, cause that thing is sharp as a needle, at any focal length, from 2.8 to 11

Dave


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:20 AM.