Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="rocketman122" data-source="post: 274324" data-attributes="member: 14443">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.</blockquote>

Verification