Kirei
Member
If your main concern is purely about image quality I believe both are about the same.
Tamron 17-50mm, Nikon 17-55mm
- Thread starter chanjyj
- Start date
- Status
If your main concern is purely about image quality I believe both are about the same.
I think Thom Hogan hits the nail on the head with his comments about the 17-55:
"Nothing blew my socks off about the images I've taken with the 17-55mm--I think Nikon has probably made a few sharper zooms--but at the same time, nothing immediately struck me as being a problem, either."
http://bythom.com/1755lens.htm
In other words, the 17-55mm is clearly a very good lens, but perhaps somewhat overpriced.
"Nothing blew my socks off about the images I've taken with the 17-55mm--I think Nikon has probably made a few sharper zooms--but at the same time, nothing immediately struck me as being a problem, either."
http://bythom.com/1755lens.htm
In other words, the 17-55mm is clearly a very good lens, but perhaps somewhat overpriced.
)
Yeah.. But based on reviews, the Tamron is not worlds better than the Sigma, so I'd put them in the same category, and even Nikkor 18-70, 18-55, 18-135, 18-200 are in that same category. If you've seen the images from 17-55, you'd know it's worth the money, about 3x the price, if you chimp with your D2X, you'll think only the 17-55 can make it.... Only problem is... the money and the weight... ;p For that matter, I still shoot mostly with the 18-200 on D70s. :dunno:
chanjyj
New Member
I need a f/2.8 prime, for some situations. But no mood to spend alot. But if 6the Tamron sacrifices alot of IQ for the price, I would buy the Nikon. Take note, the word is alot and IQ.
blazer_workz
Senior Member
Tamron one - "mai hiam buay bai" or "bo her hae mai ho"
Nikon one - "wu gai ho eh bo" or "bao jiat"
:bsmilie:
Visit your nearest dealer for a test..u got to test it for urself to see the results..its ur money anyway..
I have experience with both Tamron and Nikon lenses, so I think I am in the right position to comment. Built aside, I will focus mainly on image quality.
Nikon is usually the sharper one. Can be enlarge to 16x20 without losing sharpness. It also has less optical distortion. Color is warmer. The images usually has more contrast.
I have seen some really sharp imagines from a Tamron, however, once enlarged to 11x14, you will start to feel that something is amiss. It also has sightly more optical distortion than Nikon. Color is cooler. The images has less contrast.
I hope these information help.
Nikon is usually the sharper one. Can be enlarge to 16x20 without losing sharpness. It also has less optical distortion. Color is warmer. The images usually has more contrast.
I have seen some really sharp imagines from a Tamron, however, once enlarged to 11x14, you will start to feel that something is amiss. It also has sightly more optical distortion than Nikon. Color is cooler. The images has less contrast.
I hope these information help.
Well, personally, the nikon's built better, and the AF's gonna be at least 20% faster. I tried the tammy before, and for that price.. i'm not complaining.
As for IQ, i doubt you'll really see the difference if your pictures are viewed from your 17/19/21/24/32 inch high def monitor or getting the occasional 8x10 done from a neighborhood colour lab.
However, if you're printing huge or shooting for detail (archival, etc) I'd invest in the nikon.
As for IQ, i doubt you'll really see the difference if your pictures are viewed from your 17/19/21/24/32 inch high def monitor or getting the occasional 8x10 done from a neighborhood colour lab.
However, if you're printing huge or shooting for detail (archival, etc) I'd invest in the nikon.
psychobiologist
Senior Member
the tammy, try to get a sharp copy. i tested two copies at two different places, had the test shots on my mem card back then, softness at 55mm, and very apparent at the edges. did not end up buying a copy. i forgot where the shots were, but i was snapping the barcodes on boxes on a shelf, only sharp at the 55mm end if stopped down to F4 or more. else softness.. COULD be due to the copy i tested.
in indoor light/ambient light, w/o exposure compensation, if you pixel peep the tammy has a less-smoother skin if subject is slightly in shadow and less snappy a face outline. tested on shooting a sales man in store, but might not be accurate a test though. had slight inconsistent coloration on the tammy, perhaps slightly warmer.
tried my friend's nikon, it feels big but comfortable, reminds me a lot of the typical nikon cleanliness and sharpness. pixel for pixel very good resolution. contrasty and good colors. one of the lenses that you know when you press the shutter the shot will be what you want.
i've been constantly tempted from time to time to ditch all my lenses and get a nikkor 17-55, maybe i might do it some day.
in indoor light/ambient light, w/o exposure compensation, if you pixel peep the tammy has a less-smoother skin if subject is slightly in shadow and less snappy a face outline. tested on shooting a sales man in store, but might not be accurate a test though. had slight inconsistent coloration on the tammy, perhaps slightly warmer.
tried my friend's nikon, it feels big but comfortable, reminds me a lot of the typical nikon cleanliness and sharpness. pixel for pixel very good resolution. contrasty and good colors. one of the lenses that you know when you press the shutter the shot will be what you want.
i've been constantly tempted from time to time to ditch all my lenses and get a nikkor 17-55, maybe i might do it some day.
chanjyj
New Member
then I guess the tamron will be fine for 12 x 18 prints then. (I really don't care about built, for the price difference. Realistically, I would not expect, and would be shocked, if the Tamron is built like the Nikon at such a cheap price)
chanjyj
New Member
http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/non-nikon_articles/tokina/Tokina_AT-X_M100AF/Tokina_AT-X_M100AF_1.html
Mighty interesting-Tokina founded by Nikon engineers?
Yes, it is true. In fact I knew this since the 1980s. That was how Cathay Photo promoted their Tokina lenses then. And that was also the main reason why I bought Tokina lenses then.
The Tokina logo is a T-shaped bird. The significant of the bird is "freedom". Freedom of choice for the consumers and freedom of ideas for the engineers. Also, freedom from Nikon.
Yeah.. A couple of them started it. Nikon never had an 80-200/2.8 with a diameter of 77mm. It was only after Tokina released theirs that Nikon released one. Optical construction almost identical. So I guessed Nikon might have outsourced from Tokina.
They once advertised their lenses to be better than the original manufacturer and I think they got sanctioned by the Japanese camera industry regulatory body for a while.
Tokina's glass were not as good then but they overcame with superb optical design. Now I think they are using Hoya glass. Still I think Nikon's tolerances are tighter.
Still I believe these Japanese companies are good friends, so they help each other rather than compete. Even the 28-70 range was adopted by Tokina first before Nikon adopted it. I remembered the Angenieux was the first one for Nikon mount with f/2.6, Tokina followed with f/2.6-2.8, then Nikon's was just f/2.8.
I would say that among the 3 major 3rd party lens maker, Tokina's colour is the most consistent. Sigma's was quite bad until they started to make lenses for Leica. After which they came out with the EX range of lenses which has good colour, quite close to Leica's rendition but unfortunately, the colour between different lenses is not consistent, so when you change from a Sigma lens to another, you need to colour correct slightly differently. Tamron's is still quite flat.
No wonder i always get a feeling that both tokina and nikon lenses have similar build... Even their 'lens plate' (the gold words with the lens name) look similar...
- Status
Similar threads
