My Tamy 17-50 F2.8 w/motor ...

[nikkie]

I agree there's a yellowish cast from this lens which is hard to get rid of. Unless the situations call for it, it is generally quite acceptable or even good especially on sunny days (In fact it's more vibrant than true colours but looks good to me!).
When shooting indoors / at night (such as dinners and functions etc.) it can be quite a problem.
The Nikkors are the benchmarks for colour neutrality though.

 

[boyboy]

I agree there's a yellowish cast from this lens which is hard to get rid of. Unless the situations call for it, it is generally quite acceptable or even good especially on sunny days (In fact it's more vibrant than true colours but looks good to me!).
When shooting indoors / at night (such as dinners and functions etc.) it can be quite a problem.
The Nikkors are the benchmarks for colour neutrality though.

IMHO, ur last statement is telling of nikon quality. assuming it is true (i think it is la).

but not everyone wants to replicate or capture reality as it is. so they may be happy with off brand lens,put filter on the nikon lens or simply post process.

but then, what abt carl zeiss with eye-popping colours, that's good but dun think it's replicating reality right? :think:

anyway, these choices make photography (or gear hunting, rather) more fun and more headache at the same time :sweat:

 

[boyboy]

hey. let me say that ur posts are informative and helpful. :thumbsup:

i feel that day may never come, because photography has never been a career option for me. not in the forseeable future. i am an enthusiast, but not so discerning as yet regarding lens brands. personally i;ve shot extensively on the low to mid-range nikons. and shot a few thousand frames on the tamron. i don't notice colour diff but like i said, i'm not discerning, and i didn't do a side by side comparo

note that i do not say "wah, this carl zeiss waste money, why buy when PP can do?" it applies only to my usage.

and yes, i do agree that PP can be overly time consuming. in fact i'm trying to get my JPEGs right now, instead of anyhow then PP later. but now trying to dabble in film which is harder to PP.

it depends on which level one is at. maybe u "see me up", and thanx for the obscure compliment if u meant it as such :bsmilie:. but i know myself, not there yet, and hope i never be (always striving).

if i get the chance to shoot a lot more, maybe i will have a different mindset. and yes, i will visit this thread again and check out the carl zeiss thread also ;p

 

[boyboy]

Actually...i kinda agree with coldfish :sweat: I prefer colours of the originals.

Just my 2 cents

I'm sorry but I can't agree with you.

Photography is often described as an art form: To me, the original pictures are very pleasing to the eyes and I'd love to keep it that way simply because the photographer was not recording the images from journalistic point of view.

Sometimes, you really don't need to get to the true picture to appreciate it...

Are you so sure those two images you colour corrected, had colour casts simply because of error on the side of white balance? I do think that without clarification, things are blown out of proportion a bit.

i thought photobum posted on this thread, what happened to his posts???

anyway, i spydered my LCD, and decided to be true to my word and check out the edited VS the original. but can't find the "colour-corrected" versions of the pix!

still love the original pix by TS though.. as in, i find their colour to be quite ok. Maybe the spyder is wasted on me :bsmilie::bsmilie:. quite certainly, the extra cost of the 17-55 nikon would be a waste too!

but now, if for that kinda price, the 17-55 is full-frame capable, that is definitely worth getting over the tammy! but amateur usage? just save some $ lah :thumbsup:

EDIT: aiyoh, CS can delete posts? chey.. not used to this feature. the first forum i started posting in (some bike forum), u can't even edit ur posts, so u gotta watch what u say and "get it right" the first time round :sweat: