Tamron 17-35 vs 17-50

[rokieto]

Hmm 17-40L seems to lose out to the tamron in sharpness according to photozone's MTF tables..
furthermore, the tamron offers F2.8 and a longer range..

if u look at ephotozine's MTF tables, 17-40L is more consistent between the centre vs edge, while the others can be extreme, e.g. sharp at centre & v.soft at edges.

http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=373
http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=366
http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=472

BTW,
Tamron 17-35 is sharper then 17-50.
17-35 (above average fall-off, exceptional sharp at centre)
17-50 (distortion at wide end, good resolution & CA control)
what weakness are u willing to accept?
will it make a difference in the style of photo u shoot?
is sharpness everthing?

 

[thw]

if u look at ephotozine's MTF tables......
Tamron 17-35 is sharper then 17-50.
17-35 (above average fall-off, exceptional sharp at centre)
17-50 (distortion at wide end, good resolution & CA control)
what weakness are u willing to accept?
will it make a difference in the style of photo u shoot?
is sharpness everthing?

On the other hand, if you look at the results from Photozone.de, you'll see the 17-50 f/2.8 blowing the 17-35 and 17-40 away. Both 17-35 and 17-40 are VERY useful on a FF camera (just like the ultrawide 10-20, 12-24, 10-22 lenses), but on an APS-C body, the range may be kind of limited.

Also, keep in mind 2 important factors: (i) the ephotozine tests were carried out using DIFFERENT camera bodies (Nikon D70, Canon 20D, Canon 1D), in contrast to Photozone where you can get different lenses tested on the SAME 350D body (ii) sample variation.

Sharpness is not everything, but if one can pay a 'small' price for something terribly good and useful, why not? :bsmilie:

 

[rokieto]

On the other hand, if you look at the results from Photozone.de, you'll see the 17-50 f/2.8 blowing the 17-35 and 17-40 lens away. Both 17-35 and 17-40 are VERY useful on a FF camera (just like the ultrawide 10-20, 12-24, 10-22 lenses), but on an APS-C body, the range may be kind of limited.

Also, keep in mind 2 important factors: (i) the ephotozine tests were carried out using DIFFERENT camera bodies (Nikon D70, Canon 20D, Canon 1D), in contrast to Photozone where you can get different lenses tested on the SAME 350D body (ii) sample variation.

Sharpness is not everything, but if one can pay a 'small' price for something terribly good and useful, why not? :bsmilie:

agreed, when budget is priority, u gain some & u lose some. theres a choice for everyone.

 

[satch]

thinking of trying out the tamron 17-50 f2.8 - any idea if it can fit on an "EF-mount only" body e.g. Canon 1D?

 

[manila gorila]

what if nikon make a FF sensor would that pose problem to tamron Di lenses (and nikor DXs) because their small circle will just create vignetting right?

 

[ExplorerZ]

what if nikon make a FF sensor would that pose problem to tamron Di lenses (and nikor DXs) because their small circle will just create vignetting right?

:think: you asked a question, and you answered it yourself... :dunno:
anyway not all people will grab a Nikon fullframe when it is out (im one of them, no $)