Is the 24mm 2.8D any better than the Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non VC)?

Started Sep 1, 2011 | Discussions thread
260684 Senior Member • Posts: 1,909
Re: Looks to me like there is a difference

LX93 wrote:

I don't consider myself as a pixel-peeper, but am surprised to write that I do feel that there is a difference. Sometimes it's noticeable, sometimes it's not.

All images and straight out-of-camera .jpg's (yes, I shoot w/ RAW but for these purposes, I just put them on Basic .JPG) and were taken w/ my two D300 bodies at the same f-stop, ISO, s/s and vantage point. The other glass was a Nikkor 17-55mm 2.8 set at 24mm.

After the cutting of the cake, most receptions are a countdown til it's time to go home. So if there's interest, I can try to take some comparison shots when things are dull tomorrow night. For adventure's sake, I could even throw in images from my D7000 w/ 35mm 1.8.

Not telling which is which until people have said which they think is better. Images beginning w/ 1_DSC were all shot w/ the same camera/lens, and same for images beginning w/ 2_DSC.

Yes, one of the pictures is intended as humor.

Your "tests" aren't very consistant. For example the bottom two photos one is +0.67 EV. That's not too bad, but you have focused closer in the 2nd bottom one as the foreground is sharp, however in the very bottom shot the forground isn't sharp at all, at the same aperture (and this isn't a "lens fault" problem). Somethings "up"...

The difference between the zoom and the prime? Meh probably not much. But in weight - YES, I know what I'll continue to carry.

People spend too much time on here debating sharpness, ironically those that are really anal about it have most shots of cats and their back garden. Nikon have rarely made a duff unsharp lens lately. Except for the 24-120 3.5-5.6.

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