Comments on: Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II VC LD Aspherical IF (Nikon mount)

By: Antonis X

Antonis X — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:27:47 +0000

@Ronan
I am a pro and use all kinds of glass. Real pro’s look at their needs to accomplish their goals and invest accordingly. Only hobbyist have the luxery to be so pedantic as stating “Leave the pro glass to the pro’s…”

This lens, if it turns out ok, could fill a need I have for a small part of my business. If I can accomplish that against a third of the cost of what an other lens would cost me? Great! $$$

By: Antonis X

Antonis X — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:16:47 +0000

I now use mainly D300 and shoot only RAW. But I found some JPEG/NEFs in my archive. They were shot with a 18-200. The D300 indeed does, in the JPEGs, change the purple CA to a large degree into neutral to blue-ish CA. That’s much more pleasing to the eye. Especailly when occuring against a nice blue sky

So, I am afraid you will have to upgrade to another camera body.

By: Jon Paul

Jon Paul — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:25:39 +0000

By: Jon Paul

Jon Paul — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:24:21 +0000

I’m going to ask my neighbor to lend me his 17-55 for a few days, and I’ll post the comparison pictures for whoever wants to see them. Just shoot me an email at jonnyp427 at yahoo dot com if you’re interested in seeing the results.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 03:06:32 +0000

Sorry guys. The old Tamron cannot compete with the Nikon 16-85mm, let alone the 17-55mm, in terms of sharpness and colour. I have used both the Tammy and the 16-85mm.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 02:32:32 +0000

I’m hoping that Nikon have a 17-55 VR in development !

By: Ronan

Ronan — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 02:11:01 +0000

I’ll tell you right now.

The Nikon wins hands down.

Theirs a reason pro dx shooter use it, and it’s not because its written Nikon on it.

By: Ronan

Ronan — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 02:08:45 +0000

Thats such a bad uncontrolled comparaison…

And even at that, the Nikon wins by a lot, LOL!

By: Ronan

Ronan — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 02:07:49 +0000

Because theirs a huge difference in lens and glass quality.

If you don’t know that, then i’m glad your getting the Tamron. Leave the pro glass to the pro’s…

By: Ronan

Ronan — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 02:06:20 +0000

After owning the first version and seeing how much LESS sharp it is compared to the Nikon, i HIGHLY doubt their new one is THAT much better. Especially for $700 WITH VR.

BIG LOL!

By: Micah

Micah — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 01:02:50 +0000

Sure! Please do!

By: Micah

Micah — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 01:00:09 +0000

¡¿?!

I’d like to see some pics to back that up. I’m in Portland, OR if anybody wants to give their Tamron a go side by side with my 17-55 Nikkor.

By: Micah

Micah — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:58:22 +0000

I imagine VC would use the same tech. Everybody uses the same accelerometers as far as I can tell, but everybody’s implementation and glass will be different.

Time will tell.

By: Micah

Micah — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:54:12 +0000

huh? Why so hot on Tamron? They make some ok glass, but they wrap it in cheap plastic. I’ve owned Nikon, Canon, Tokina, and Sigma. I can’t bring myself to buy any Tamron because it feels too flimsy. I can dig lightweight…but there’s a point where it’s a bad thing.

Studio I worked for sent highschool kids out with the Tamron 28-70/2.8. They looked ok, but not marvelous on the 20D and like utter crap at the edges on a 1Ds mkII.

(P.S. Firefox wants to spellcheck “Tamron” into “Tampon”)

By: Micah

Micah — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:49:38 +0000

Word from exactly who?

Word also has it 4 out of 5 statistics are faked.

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:48:01 +0000

I hope they offer a version without the built-in motor..

If its just me or the motor on The D300 is just crazy fast compare to lens’ motor or even to AF-S

By: David C

David C — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:46:30 +0000

I would get the 17-55 if they added VR, but I’m getting the Tamron. I could buy multiple Tamrons for the cost of the 17-55 and it doesn’t have VR. People say it doesn’t need VR because its primarily wide, but then why does Nikon make the 18-55 VR, the 18-105 VR, the 16-85 VR? VR (or Tamron’s VC) will help me quite a bit with indoor shooting and I am looking forward to getting it.

The Tamron now puts pressure on Nikon and both the 17-55 f/2.8 AND the 16-85 VR. I hope Nikon responds and if they do, I’ll consider switching, but until then, its the Tamron VC!!

By: David C

David C — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:39:42 +0000

Cool, by the way, which camera do you own and which kind of CA, because D300 and I think D90 and newer cameras have CA removal built into their JPG engines. But it doesn’t handle all CA. Might be a good excuse for a new camera body

By: jay

jay — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:26:47 +0000

Dan, maybe you did not get a good copy of the Tamron. The color is actually better than the Nikon.

By: JC

JC — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 20:49:49 +0000

Not the best lens comparison I have seen…