Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 31, 2010, 1:28 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default 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.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 31, 2010, 1:32 PM   #2
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

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.
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2010, 1:36 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hards80 View Post
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.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2010, 11:33 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
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.
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
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2010, 9:25 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

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.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2010, 11:17 AM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

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
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2010, 11:22 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NHL View Post
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.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2010, 2:33 PM   #8
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
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...

Last edited by NHL; Feb 2, 2010 at 2:35 PM.
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2010, 3:08 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NHL View Post
-> 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.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2010, 3:33 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
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
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:21 PM.