Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rocketman122" data-source="post: 274434" data-attributes="member: 14443">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 &quot;god damn this lens is sharp and contrasty&quot; 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 &quot;step&quot; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rocketman122, post: 274434, member: 14443"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification