Started Feb 22, 2013 | Discussions thread
123Mike Veteran Member • Posts: 4,643

I have the Tam 17-50 2.8 and I can definitely say that it opens up a lot of possibilities. It's very sharp at 50 2.8 I find. At 17 the AF appears to have trouble determining the correct distance sometimes. The solution there is to zoom in, focus, zoom out, and then snap. But even a partial zoom in, and the issue goes away. I think this is completely an AF camera issue, and nothing to do with the lens. There are no smarts inside the lens I think.
Anyway, I've been taking many more indoor low light photos without flash. I take a bunch of burst shots, and then hand pick the sharp ones. Amazing results. Totally recommend this lens. Some claim that the kit lens is just as sharp. Noway hosay. The Tam kills it at much wider apertures even. It's way more tack sharp.

I have the 55-200 and I'm looking at the 55-300. Various samples online shows how darn good it is. I've seen claims that it can actually compete with the G lenses (center, not corners).

But I've found my 55-200 also very very sharp. I've never been disappointed with it, and it's always been one of my favorite, and at times my most favorite lens, right from the getgo. I'd love to see a good accurate critical comparison of the 55-200 and 55-300. Do you know of any?

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