Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
a quick comparison between the nikon and tamron 17-35
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="rocketman122" data-source="post: 274309" data-attributes="member: 14443"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="rocketman122, post: 274309, member: 14443"] 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 [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
a quick comparison between the nikon and tamron 17-35
Top
