Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon D300 & Tamron 17-50 2.8

Go to last post
Good shots from a good lens.

However don't drop the lens by mistake ( as I have at Red Rock and once in Beijing ) as it breaks very easily. Had my lens in for repairs three times.
Since the image quality is so good, I seem to get it repaired each time.
 
I agree, I have the VC version of the Tammy and it is an awesome lens. Super sharp even wide open.

I also agree with Dez about the frame, drop it :)
 
olyflyer said:
I disagree with the ones who say it is sharp or that it is anywhere near a prime. Both the 50/1.4G and the 35/1.8G are considerably sharper, especially at f/2.8, and have nicer bokeh, IMHO.
Click to expand...
Yes, but they do not zoom. And of course they are sharper, at f/2.8 they are stopped down vs a full open lens. But I have made many works in dim light at f/4 with the Tamron, and never regretted it. Plus the VC works, so with still subjects the Tamron is much more versatile.
Fabio
 
olyflyer said:
I disagree with the ones who say it is sharp or that it is anywhere near a prime. Both the 50/1.4G and the 35/1.8G are considerably sharper, especially at f/2.8, and have nicer bokeh, IMHO.
Click to expand...
Nobody is debating whether the Tamron 17-50 is sharper than a prime. Those who've owned this lens (myself included) found it to be very sharp.
--
Dez

http://photos.dezmix.com

 
DezM said:
olyflyer said:
I disagree with the ones who say it is sharp or that it is anywhere near a prime. Both the 50/1.4G and the 35/1.8G are considerably sharper, especially at f/2.8, and have nicer bokeh, IMHO.
Click to expand...
Nobody is debating whether the Tamron 17-50 is sharper than a prime. Those who've owned this lens (myself included) found it to be very sharp.
Click to expand...
But that's just it. In these images I don't see any proof of the lens being "very sharp". Maybe it is due to the compression I don't know, but even at these small sizes it does indeed not look sharp.
 
olyflyer said:
DezM said:
olyflyer said:
I disagree with the ones who say it is sharp or that it is anywhere near a prime. Both the 50/1.4G and the 35/1.8G are considerably sharper, especially at f/2.8, and have nicer bokeh, IMHO.
Click to expand...
Nobody is debating whether the Tamron 17-50 is sharper than a prime. Those who've owned this lens (myself included) found it to be very sharp.
Click to expand...
But that's just it. In these images I don't see any proof of the lens being "very sharp". Maybe it is due to the compression I don't know, but even at these small sizes it does indeed not look sharp.
Click to expand...
Well, I have plenty of proof from when I owned it. The only thing that I didn't like about the lens was that the AF wasn't as fast as others and it was noisey. I prefer the silent IF of the Nikkor lenses.

For some reason, images linked in DPR appear fuzzier than when viewed on an individual's website. I'm giving Skip the benefit of the doubt.
--
Dez

http://photos.dezmix.com

 
Fabio Amodeo said:
olyflyer said:
I disagree with the ones who say it is sharp or that it is anywhere near a prime. Both the 50/1.4G and the 35/1.8G are considerably sharper, especially at f/2.8, and have nicer bokeh, IMHO.
Click to expand...
Yes, but they do not zoom. And of course they are sharper, at f/2.8 they are stopped down vs a full open lens. But I have made many works in dim light at f/4 with the Tamron, and never regretted it. Plus the VC works, so with still subjects the Tamron is much more versatile.
Click to expand...
Of course they are not zooms, and my comment was not a zoom vs. prime type of comment, although reading once again, I see it came out wrong. I only responded to the attributes "very sharp" and similar. "Very sharp" is not connected to zoom / no zoom thing. It is just very sharp or not very sharp, as simple as that. Yes, those primes are stopped down if they are used at f/2.8, but that's the only way to compare them since that's the common aperture and if you don't want extreme narrow DOF than anything wider is just too much.
 
Dez: Thanks 'having my back.' My monitor is not calibrated (plan to do it soon) and I purposely left the pics a little soft...which is a personal choice. For me, most all landscapes need to be tack sharp...portraits, 'sometimes' soft is better! Just my 2 cents, which is worth about a penny. :-)
 
Raider70 said:
Dez: Thanks 'having my back.'
Click to expand...
There is no need. I did not attack you at all, in fact I said the images were nice. Other people however commented on how sharp they are, which is not true.
Raider70 said:
My monitor is not calibrated (plan to do it soon) and I purposely left the pics a little soft...which is a personal choice. For me, most all landscapes need to be tack sharp...portraits, 'sometimes' soft is better!
Click to expand...
I can buy that and have absolutely no problems with that. Taste is different.
 
olyflyer: Sorry if you thought that I thought you were attacking me in any way. I was just thanking Dez for his thoughtfulness. We've had several 'internet discussions' and he is a real gentleman.

I accept wholly your comments. If one is thin-skinned, one should not post on this forum because 'most' are accomplished photographers and there is a good chance that there are going to be some assessments made that one could take personal (if one is too sensitive).

Having my pics assessed/evaluated is the best way to learn to make better pics. There will be compliments and not so complimentary assessments. I read and learn from both...taking nothing personal.

I do need to calibrate my monitor as the pics may be even softer than I'm aware.

I've enjoyed the banter. Thanks for your replies...and continued good shooting.

Skip
 
The Tamron can be VERY sharp wide open. Maybe the one you tested was not spot on or you had a bad lens/body combination. I used to have it on a D80 and found it not useable at 2.8. I was ready to get rid of it until I upgraded to a D300s and WOW. This lens is SHARP!

I also disagree about the bokeh vs the 50mm 1.8. Yes, the 1.8 can give you more blur due to the wider aperture but the "quality" of that blur is not as good as the blur produced by the rounded blades of the Tammy. The 35mm 1.8 can produce as good or better bokeh as the Tamron.

Tamron 17-50mm VC on D300s wide open:




olyflyer said:
I disagree with the ones who say it is sharp or that it is anywhere near a prime. Both the 50/1.4G and the 35/1.8G are considerably sharper, especially at f/2.8, and have nicer bokeh, IMHO.
Click to expand...
 
I also own a Tamron 17-50. Currently the VC version, previously the screw-drive version.

From my experience the lens is sharp in the center at 2.8 for all my needs. Comparable to my other lenses wide open (35 1.8, 50, 1.4, 70-200, 2.8 and Tokina 11-16). Comparable, but is it sharper? not than all of them at their wide open setting, but wide open for a zoom at 2.8 in the center where I personally need it I'm impressed with the first version , and the latest with VC.

I agree with others it is "tender". My first version basically wore out, the front element came loose, but I fixed it myself (I didn't want to wait while sending to Tamron). Then later the rubber grip started coming loose and was "stretched". So I traded it in locally and upgraded to the VC version. I really like the VC (perfect for museums or similar situations where I don't have a tripod).

--
Tim
http://myfotoguy.zenfolio.com - Gallery
http://www.my-fotoguy.com/ - Tips and Technique

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top