a quick comparison between the nikon and tamron 17-35

R

rocketman122

Senior Member
I did a wedding on tuesday. was at the hair salon and remembered I wanted to test my friends 17-35 AFS vs my cheapo tamron 17-35 2.8-4. I didnt test the lenses at different apertures and focal lengths but after seeing the results, im now very curious to see how well they both do. I was certain there would be no comparison between the 2 and the nikon would be the better performer. not so.

the test is not the most precise so take it with a grain of salt. to me the tamron won. I only shot them at 17mm and at f/4. because I never shoot more open than that. 17mm is the most important focal length to me as well. after seeing this, I now want to see what both are really capable of. not jumping to any conclusions as I need to do a thorough test.

I shot them hand held at CH for a few burst shots. I took the 3rd of each burst as it would be the one with the least amount of vibration. they were shot at 1/500 or 1.640. iso 2500 so I can get a high shutter to freeze. I used AF, not manual. full files with exif is there. only opened them in photoshop, changed canvas size and pasted the tamron into the nikon file and texted it for proper info. I also uploaded both individually. other pics are there as well of side by side body size.

tell me what I should do technique wise for a more precise test for next time. but truthfully, I dont think it will matter. but I hope im wrong. for nikons sake.
 
Scott Murray

Scott Murray

Senior Member
I cannot view these files from work.

[h=1] [/h][h=1] STOP! / ARRÉTER![/h]
The site « Simple File Sharing and Storage. » is blocked. The site is categorised as « Mixed Content/Potentially Adult;File Storage/Sharing ».
For further information, please refer to the Acceptable Usage Policy. If you believe the site is incorrectly categorised please contact your IS&T service desk.
Le site « Simple File Sharing and Storage. »; est bloqué. Le site est classé comme « Mixed Content/Potentially Adult;File Storage/Sharing ».
Pour plus d’information, veuillez vous référer à la Charte de bon usage. Si le site est incorrectement catégorisé, veuillez contacter votre service informatique.
 
R

rocketman122

Senior Member
Scott Murray said:
I cannot view these files from work.

 STOP! / ARRÉTER!
The site « Simple File Sharing and Storage. » is blocked. The site is categorised as « Mixed Content/Potentially Adult;File Storage/Sharing ».
For further information, please refer to the Acceptable Usage Policy. If you believe the site is incorrectly categorised please contact your IS&T service desk.
Le site « Simple File Sharing and Storage. »; est bloqué. Le site est classé comme « Mixed Content/Potentially Adult;File Storage/Sharing ».
Pour plus d’information, veuillez vous référer à la Charte de bon usage. Si le site est incorrectement catégorisé, veuillez contacter votre service informatique.
Click to expand...


Hey Scott!

Maybe theres a firewall or filter set at the work. mediafire is a very well know file sharing site. theyve been around for years.

check this
mediafire.JPG

Guys, maybe someone can check for me if theyre able to see the pictures please?
 
R

rocketman122

Senior Member
itll be hard to see. trust me, I have to zoom in to really see the grout in between the bricks. there a limited amount of rez/size I can post. you wont see the difference between them. the salon had a brick wall with lighting so shot that but the rez limit here wont let you see the clear difference. plus, I dont want to mess with the file so it doesnt look suspicious that I screwed with the test. funny though that the tamron files are bigger than the nikon by 0.8 of a megabyte.

something else I noticed. and this is from the 13 pics in total I shot, but the tamron is sharper. could be the nikon af needs adjustment, not sure. its my friends lens and I will need to take it to do proper testing. although ive never done side by side testing. but to me, the tamron is sharper. far from being sharp in the corners but its better than the nikon. and I told him that one wedding when I took his nikon 17-35. the pictures looked fine, sharpness wise. decent but meh and low contrast. they both are oldish tech but I will take the lens for better testing because now I really want to see the tamron spank the nikon. af is lightning fast with the tamron or nikon. build quality? hands down to the nikon, but feel in the hand? tamron easily takes it. the zoom ring is much better and wider/smoother and just feels superior to the nikon in the hand. flare, dont know. I usually shoot the tamron only on the dance floor and its crappy lighting. its not of interest to me anyways. contrast, I give to the tamron.

other thing I noticed. I shot the tamron just a bit further from the wall than the nikon. I noticed this now. like I said, I didnt use a tripod. handheld at high shutter speeds though, but I was thinking that maybe because the nikon was closer to the subject that its DOF might be less, but since were talking about 17mm, I dont think there would be a huge variation. besides that, I know when I shot people with the 85/105 theres a very high level of sharpness/detail in the pics when I do face or half body compared to full body and I was thinking since I shot closer, I would see more detail, but it isnt true with these pics. the tamron is further away and its clearly sharper on the same bricks when looking at both of them
 
Last edited:
G

gqtuazon

Gear Head
In order to get a more accurate lens test comparison, a tripod must be used. i think you are only comparing lens sharpness or are you looking at the other aspects as well?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
R

rocketman122

Senior Member
hey Glenn, were you able to see the pics ? just want to see of the links work.

they both distort and its not relevant to me. when you shoot people at anything past 24mm then it doesnt matter. they get stretched and warped and look horrible because of the focal length. they look horrible as it is and adding barrel distortion doesnt really matter.


for me, contrast and sharpness is what concerns me. yes, I will use a tripod for my next tests. from what I see, and I may be jumping to conclusions, the tamron is superior. I usually dont need to access and re access a picture. analyze and put under a microscope like many. I just need a few seconds to see the image and its immediate to me. a few seconds is enough. I also refocused every burst with each lens. but 1/500-640 is more than enough to get a good enough sense how a lens will handle. if we really want to see "bottom line" performance, then a tripod will let each show how strong they really are. but ive also seen it in his photos when he shoots with the nikon at 2.8/17mm and its quite soft. I shot with it and it lacks contrast.

not passing final judgment and its not a battle to the death, final test ever in the world. its just a real world test how it would handle. after all, I dont shoot weddings with a tripod. we both shoot our lenses handheld. youre free to zoom in and see if there was excessive blur from vibration but you can clearly see the images are very sharp.

it wont really matter as those nikon supremists will stick by nikon no matter what, so no matter what I will do, they wont be happy. I do think the tamron is superior based only from these early pics. and like everyone else here, im allowed my own personal opinion. but we can agree to disagree.
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
I can see your shots and I'm inclined to agree with your assessment based on what I'm seeing.


rocketman122 said:
... it wont really matter as those nikon supremists will stick by nikon no matter what, so no matter what I will do, they wont be happy. I do think the tamron is superior based only from these early pics. and like everyone else here, im allowed my own personal opinion. but we can agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
I've said it before and I'll say it again now... There was a time when Nikon glass, by virtue of being Nikon glass, could be counted on to be superior to names like Sigma, Tamron and Tokina. Those days are GONE. End of discussion. This is not to say that Nikon doesn't still produce world class optics, but other manufacturers have stepped up their game and no longer take a customary back seat to Nikon.

For those who desire nothing but Nikon kit, go for it! Enjoy! But don't kid yourself that simply because it's Nikon branded it's the best option available every time.

...
 
R

rocketman122

Senior Member
Horoscope Fish said:
I can see your shots and I'm inclined to agree with your assessment based on what I'm seeing.



I've said it before and I'll say it again now... There was a time when Nikon glass, by virtue of being Nikon glass, could be counted on to be superior to names like Sigma, Tamron and Tokina. Those days are GONE. End of discussion. This is not to say that Nikon doesn't still produce world class optics, but other manufacturers have stepped up their game and no longer take a customary back seat to Nikon.

For those who desire nothing but Nikon kit, go for it! Enjoy! But don't kid yourself that simply because it's Nikon branded it's the best option available every time.

...
Click to expand...

I couldnt agree more. the days to get a great lens at a reasonable price with stellar IQ is over.

-wide angle zoom, we have the tokina 16-28mm 2.8 which is supposed to be close to the 14-24 in IQ. personally, I would say from f/4 onwards its a great performer.
-midrange, the tamron 24-70 is fabulous. it might not be the best but im sure its better the nikon 28-70 AFS or 35-70 AFD, and with very useful VC. maybe the new tokina has something good to offer. also im very interested in the sigma 24-70 2.8 OS
-long end we have the tamron and sigma 70-200. very nice IQ. vignetting may be a tad worse with the tamron at 200, but IQ is very sharp wide open (matt grainger did a 3 way test sigma/nikon/canon). im waiting for tokina to wake up.
-macro tokina 100 2.8/tamron 90 2.8 VC/ and sigma 105 OS give a great fight and alternative. the sigma 150 is on my radar as well. for portraits, im dying to find out about the sigma 135 1.8.
-primes- 35 ART now 50 ART, possible a 24 ART down the line. im waiting for tamron and tokina to wake up here. there is dedfinitely a market for competition.

economy is tough and people think twice and three times before forking over money to nikon thinking they are the last word in superior lenses. not anymore. its actually the opposite if you noticed. nikons build quality had gone down and they have slowish AF and the trio have upped their build. im happy the trio have woken up and realized that people would buy 3rd party lenses if the IQ is great. now they need to work on their QC to give people confidence in buying their gear. today you dont have to buy nikon to get excellent glass.

Im considering the Tokina, but after this early test, Im considering just keeping the tamron. I will do another test though. this test is just a quick on the fly test and needs to be more precise. ill do it soon as im very curious about this.
 
4

480sparky

Senior Member
Although I've owned and tested both lenses, I never did side-by-side.

But I know from experience that when stopped down to f/8 or f/11, the Tamron did far better than one would expect for a lens of that price. It really sucked, however, on the corners shooting wide-open. Softer than a baby's butt, I always said.

The Tammy had a bit more distortion than the Nikkor, too. That's why I upgraded to the Nikkor. Sharper, less distortion, and a better build.
 
R

rocketman122

Senior Member
480sparky said:
Although I've owned and tested both lenses, I never did side-by-side.

But I know from experience that when stopped down to f/8 or f/11, the Tamron did far better than one would expect for a lens of that price. It really sucked, however, on the corners shooting wide-open. Softer than a baby's butt, I always said.

The Tammy had a bit more distortion than the Nikkor, too. That's why I upgraded to the Nikkor. Sharper, less distortion, and a better build.
Click to expand...

the nikon may be better. I never shoot past f/5.6 unless I need to shoot sunsets outdoors and inside I never shoot past 4.5. I will a side by side test on a tripod with mirror lock up/timer, but from these simple tests, both are soft in the corners but the nikon is the one smooth like a baby butt. not that that both are stellar in the corners. but ive seen this as well when I used his nikon for an entire wedding and then edited these pics and clearly the nikon lacked contrast over the tamron I purchased later on.

I also gave it to a friend videographer at a bar mitzvah I shot on wednesday and his comment after using a loupe on the screen for focus was "god damn this lens is sharp and contrasty" we perceive things to be superior because we buy the more expensive lens but in this situation Im not so certain its true. look at the sigma 35 vs nikon or canon, look at the tokina 16-28 which is better than the canon 16-35 and without even seeing it, im sure beats the nikon 17-35 and I think the 16-35VR (but thats hearsay) build quality is better but since the lens is mounted and im not holding it, I dont really feel the build. I do like heft with the nikon and the tamron feels like theres nothing there. all I can say is the very wide zoom ring is so much better to use and the "step" on the body with the nikon is annoying after some time.

Ill do a test again but I think this $400 lens will better his $1800 lens.
 
4

480sparky

Senior Member
rocketman122 said:
the nikon may be better.........
Click to expand...

Maybe my Tammy was a soft copy.

I routinely shoot test shots with a tripod on all my lenses. Every marked focal length on the barrel gets tested. I rate (scale 1-10) the center and corners on a scale of 1-10. I recall giving the Tamron some 1s and 2s in the corners, meaning I really couldn't even make out what I was looking at. But the worst I have for the Nikkor's corners is 4. And it get much better at f/4, running 6-7. By f/8, I have the corners at 8 to 9.

Since I sold the Tammy, I've deleted all the test shots and results from my computer.
 
R

rocketman122

Senior Member
480sparky said:
Maybe my Tammy was a soft copy.

I routinely shoot test shots with a tripod on all my lenses. Every marked focal length on the barrel gets tested. I rate (scale 1-10) the center and corners on a scale of 1-10. I recall giving the Tamron some 1s and 2s in the corners, meaning I really couldn't even make out what I was looking at. But the worst I have for the Nikkor's corners is 4. And it get much better at f/4, running 6-7. By f/8, I have the corners at 8 to 9.

Since I sold the Tammy, I've deleted all the test shots and results from my computer.
Click to expand...

ill do some tests as soon as I get a chance. I will just do a basic brick wall test. nothing more. I will shoot at 2.8/4/5.6/8. 17/24/35mm. dont care for flare and distortion can be seen on the brick wall. af was quick on both. while the nikon is silent the tamron is quite quiet even though it uses the camera motor. it has the same tone as the 50 1.8d but its very quiet. not an annoying sound at all. should I keep the tripod in the same space for both? or should I compose the picture so both are identical frame wise?
then we can see the true focal lengths.. what distance should I shoot? should I keep it the same for all 3 focal lengths? not sure which is better and dont ask for both. Im not down for shooting tons and tons of frames haha.

what surprises me in these tests is the tamron being shot from further away has much more detail then with the nikon which is closer and should have more micro detail. like when I do a face shot with the 85/105 vs half body or full body shot. forget the corners with both. they both suck A. but im talking about contrast and sharpness. I think I just got a very good copy. well we know QC in 3rd party lenses is a mixed bag.
should I check his lens for focus fine tune? ill just
 
Last edited:
4

480sparky

Senior Member
I don't concern myself with AF noise, distortion, exact focal length, etc. I'm testing for sharpness, which is what is paramount for my work. Distortion can be corrected in post, but a lens that controls it better makes for less work for every shot that needs corrected.

I really don't care that a supposed 17mm lens is actually 17.85439856mm. Nor f/4 is actually f/3.984758663.

I don't shoot brick walls, newspapers, test charts, etc. I shoot my back yard. I test every full aperture and every focal length marked on the barrel. I then pixel-peep the results at 100% and make what is purely a judgement call. Nothing scientific about it.

Here's one sample result, that for my Nikkor 24-120 f/4:

SweetSpot.jpg


The top left of the pair of numbers is my judgement of the center sharpness, and lower right of the pair is the corner. I color-code the backgrounds based on the numbers, making the focal length/f-stop combo green as a first choice, blue as a second choice, orange as a last result, and red means avoid if at all possible.
 
Last edited:
Top