Nikon 24-70 versus 17-55

Started Jan 6, 2008 | Discussions thread
CCarroll Contributing Member • Posts: 682
Re: Reading Comprehension 101

Phil Youngblood wrote:

Oh, but the difference CAN be seen on a properly exposed and executed
shot. I'm not going on any "I bet" guess but on actual images instead.


Simply put, I don't believe this. I don't have the Tamron lens in question but I do have the Nikkor 17-55. I also have a Sigma 17-70. I doubt the Tamron is worse than the Sigma. I would guarantee you that with properly exposed, executed and processed shots neither you nor anyone else would be able to reliably determine which pictures were taken with which lenses. However, mechanically there is no comparison between the two lenses. From those aspects it is easy to see why the Nikon costs a bunch more. But that bunch more cost would not be worth paying for everyone.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow