Tokina 16-50 f2.8 or Tamron 17-70 f2.8, which is sharper

I am in a bit of a dilemma. I need a new 16/17-50 before next Saturday. I would dearly like a Nikon 17-55 but I might not have enough funds in time.

So just wondering which of these is sharper wide open, Tokina 16-50 f2.8 or Tamron 17-70 f2.8?
Thanks in advance for you assistance.
Tim

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_1750_28_nikon/index.htm

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tokina_1650_28_nikon/index.htm

timslights said:

So just wondering which of these is sharper wide open, Tokina 16-50
f2.8 or Tamron 17-70 f2.8?

Click to expand...

A 'bookshelf test' with the short time I had with 16-50 before returning it.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&message=25078919

At f/2.8, the 16-50 is a bit soft to my liking, stopped down the difference would not be that much noticable. However, big price diff remains and built issue on that particular copy is still questionable. 100% crops unsharpened:

Nice test shot. What focal length did you use?

I've been assuming the OP means the Tamron 17-50 2.8, of course.

Hi,

I owned the 16-50 of Tokina, I returned it in for a used 28-70 of Nikon.

The Tokina is a good average lens, nothnig more than that. Build and operation are the best of the lens.

Optically it is soft wide open and till on 5.6, it has problems with CA/PF and it vignets quite a lot, also not only wide open.

See for some examples on my pbase site.

However, I heard (I cannot confirm if it is true) that they made small modifications to the lens just after the public release, so that it would better perform wide open and has lesser problems with CA/PF.

Furthermore, Tokina hsa a bit of a history of sample quality difference.

I own a very good 12-24 of Tokina, however several persons I know have/had whole diffrent experiences with this lens. It will probable be the same with the 16-50

Michel

~ Light is eveything ~
http://www.fotopropaganda.com
http://www.pbase.com/photopropaganda

Big Daddie said:

Nice test shot. What focal length did you use?

I've been assuming the OP means the Tamron 17-50 2.8, of course.

Click to expand...

Yeah nice shots. I did mean the 17-50 2.8, bit of a typo.

I can get the Tamron for $440aud where as the 17-55 will set me back about $1700aud. Big bit of a difference when i am thinking of waiting for the 14-24 and the 24-70.

Think I will just bite the bullet and get the Tamron17-50 for now and see how it goes. I only really need that range to assist my 70-200 vr, 30 f1.4, 85 f1.4 and Tokina 12-24. I have an old Sigma 28-70 f2.8 that I can use but it doesn't really impress me much, although I am getting good at pulling it apart and tightening the internal mounting plate screws....LOL!
Cheers
Tim

Big Daddie said:

Nice test shot. What focal length did you use?

Click to expand...

That was at 17mm to come up with similar frame setting, mentioned on the other thread, straight from d80 jpg fine. Same f/2.8 softness did show up at 24, 35 and 50 FL setting though.

timslights said:

Think I will just bite the bullet and get the Tamron17-50 for now and
see how it goes. I only really need that range to assist my 70-200
vr, 30 f1.4, 85 f1.4 and Tokina 12-24.

Click to expand...

Considering your other fine lenses I don't think you will be completely satisfied with tamron 17-50 ;-) however it should serve as a good stopgap before your 24-70 arrives. edit: my primary concern apart from f/2.8 softness was its built: very unlike 12-24 (which did not extend), 16-50's front barrel wobbles by a fair amount when zoomed in at 16mm, but quite solid as it extends a bit, say to 24mm.

from a pro shooter who is very popular on this site.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=21792611

I have the Tamron and compared it to a very good copy of the Nikon 17-55mm for a week and found the Tamron sharper at the edges than the Nikon. The IQ was the same. I love the size and weight of the Tamron over the Nikon and took the $800 saved and put it towards my new D300.

17-50 is sharp for me