May 3 2009, 11:38 AM
QUOTE(alpha_company @ May 3 2009, 04:07 AM)
Got my new tamron 17-50 f/2.8 yesterday.... woohoo
I went to a shop in penang. i know the sellers there..
The new stock for tamron 17-50 for nikon mount came in that shop around 4-5 days ago .. i went there yesterday evening and there's only two 17-50 tammy's left and one is already booked...so only left one... THE ONLY ONE wow..last one in that shop
Tried and tested both sigma 17-70 and tamron 17-50 (also tested with focus chart) and took the tamron because:
1. Constant f/2.8 from 17mm to 50mm - need "cari makan lens" for weddings
2. Body quality - i feel that the sigma's built is still of high quality but the body texture is somewhat undesirable and prone to scratching and/or peeling.
A note about the sigma 17-70 though... the MFD is realllly awesome.. by using manual focus i can put a finger just a few cm away from the lens and it can still focus... wow.. really impressed by that. seriously. a totally fun and creative lens.
Added on May 3, 2009, 4:15 am
Tamron 18-270 has a clear advantage because of the extra 70mm length. Another good thing about it is that it still keeps the same f/6.3 even at a longer 270mm range compared to it's other 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 and 18-250 f/3.5-6.3 lenses.
image quality wise i dont know and i dont think it will differ much from 18-200 VR f/3.5-5.6
if im comparing 18-200mm from nikon, tamron and sigma, of course the nikkor 18-200 VR wins hands down because of the VR II and also because of the bigger aperture f5.6 at 200mm compared to sigma & tamron's f6.3 at 200mm and the lack of VR equivalent tech on both.
Tamron 18-270mm image is quite sharp, even compared to nikon 18-200mm. It's VC also quite reliable as it allow bout 3 stops down.I went to a shop in penang. i know the sellers there..
The new stock for tamron 17-50 for nikon mount came in that shop around 4-5 days ago .. i went there yesterday evening and there's only two 17-50 tammy's left and one is already booked...so only left one... THE ONLY ONE wow..last one in that shop
Tried and tested both sigma 17-70 and tamron 17-50 (also tested with focus chart) and took the tamron because:
1. Constant f/2.8 from 17mm to 50mm - need "cari makan lens" for weddings
2. Body quality - i feel that the sigma's built is still of high quality but the body texture is somewhat undesirable and prone to scratching and/or peeling.
A note about the sigma 17-70 though... the MFD is realllly awesome.. by using manual focus i can put a finger just a few cm away from the lens and it can still focus... wow.. really impressed by that. seriously. a totally fun and creative lens.
Added on May 3, 2009, 4:15 am
Tamron 18-270 has a clear advantage because of the extra 70mm length. Another good thing about it is that it still keeps the same f/6.3 even at a longer 270mm range compared to it's other 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 and 18-250 f/3.5-6.3 lenses.
image quality wise i dont know and i dont think it will differ much from 18-200 VR f/3.5-5.6
if im comparing 18-200mm from nikon, tamron and sigma, of course the nikkor 18-200 VR wins hands down because of the VR II and also because of the bigger aperture f5.6 at 200mm compared to sigma & tamron's f6.3 at 200mm and the lack of VR equivalent tech on both.
as alpha compony said, Tamron 18-200mm lack of vibration compensation. But I think Sigma got its own anti-vibration.
However Tamron and Sigma is much cheaper..
Quote
0.0192sec
0.91
6 queries
GZIP Disabled