Nikon 17-55, soft edges at 17mm?

allanm

allanm

Messages
3,727
Name
Allan
Edit My Images
No
I bought my Nikon 17-55 a few weeks ago and have only just started using it properly. I got a bit of a shock when looking at a 17mm image, the edges dont seem very well defined, rather "smudged"
So, I took some more with the Nikon and them some comparisons with my Tamron 17-50. The Tamron is far sharper at the edges at 17mm. Towards 50mm, the Nikon takes the lead in quality ( phew!) again, but I was concerned with the IQ at 17mm.
Is this to be expected or do I have a dodgy lens?

Heres some comparison shots, full sizes available if you click on the images. All Jpegs straight out of the camera

Nikon 17-55 at f2.8



Tamron 17-50 at f2.8



I'll post some more if anyone wants to see more..

Allan
 
Those are both the same image, the gull is in exactly the same place in both
 
Martyn... said:
Those are both the same image, the gull is in exactly the same place in both
Click to expand...

Ah, well spotted. Thats what comes of having a platefull of food ready at the same time as posting these!
Anyway, image now changed..... first one is now from the Nikon lens

Allan
 
Looked at the larger images, and the 17-55 looks fine to me at the edges.

I have too encountered the attempt to post, with images, whilst being advised your supper is going cold, not a good idea :D
 
I'd say it's just a case of pixel peeping. There really is very little discernable difference between the two looking at that parking sign on the left. That said, is the Nikon worth the extra price over the Tamron? That comes down to what you value in a lens. Should you have bought the Nikon when you already had the very reputable Tamron? Again, only you can answer. If you're not happy, you're not happy. Me? I'd stop comparing two lenses and get out and enjoy using them. (I have the Nikon :LOL:)
 
I only started to compare the two to get some test shots as I will be selling the Tamron soon and thought I would get some comparison shots while i was at it.

I love the Tamron lenses ( I have the 28-75 too) but I find the Nikon a nicer lens to use so i will be keeping it anyway, it was just a bit unnerving seeing the Tamron produce what looked like a better image at 17mm. Of course, you are right, pixel peeping is a bad habit, I dont usually do it. The Nikon still performs better at all other f/l's ( ooh, pixel peeped again :nono:) ( it was the right hand side that I was peeping at!)

Allan
 
agreed nothing in it unless you were looking at the boats - on the tamron the boat name "expedite" is much sharper but this could be camera shake or motion blur from the water moving the boat
 
the tamron is far sharper, but unless these were on a tripod and focused on a still subject i'd be reluctant to compare :)
 
kman said:
agreed nothing in it unless you were looking at the boats - on the tamron the boat name "expedite" is much sharper but this could be camera shake or motion blur from the water moving the boat
Click to expand...

Good spot, I was looking at the corners of the image. The Tamron is alot sharper, even looking at the wall behind the boats in the distance.
 
Shutter speeds were over 1/2500 on both so the effects of camera shake or motion blur would be minimal! I have been taking more shots and the out of focus / smudged edges of the Nikon seem consistant with the effects of field curvature, something I have read is apparent in both lenses but more so in the Nikon
That said, I took some more comparison images of much closer subjects (back garden) and the effects are reversed, the Nikon is clearly superior there.
I really must stop this pixel peeping. Anyway, the Tamron is soon to be sent away for a clean ( dust inside rear element, and, I think, a small hair!) then I will be selling it and keeping the Nikon
Allan
 
Dal said:
Doesn't look massively different to me.

Thanks for posting these as I'm extremely close to buying the Tamron.
Click to expand...

I too can't see much reason to shell a load extra on the Nikkor (y) (but each one to his/her own :D)

Btw, I'll be looking out for your Tamron shortly!!!
 
Naith said:
I too can't see much reason to shell a load extra on the Nikkor (y) (but each one to his/her own :D)
Click to expand...
no, nor me........now!

It will be about a month before I am ready to sell the Tamron, I'll post it here after it's been cleaned.
Allan
 
Looking at both I note both taken at F2.8 but your image has a large DoV for which you need f8 minimum
With out knowing where the images are focused on its hard to tell much
Also Tamron I note the red light looks blurred but your shutter was 1/5000
Looking at the mast I think the Tamron is much sharper on all of the mast which makes me think you have focus different places

Both same settings
# Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) = 10/50000 second ===> 1/5000 second ===> 0.0002 second
# Lens F-Number / F-Stop = 28/10 ===> ƒ/2.8
# Exposure Program = aperture priority (3)
# ISO Speed Ratings = 200
 
I agree, f8 would be a better aperture, I actually used f9 for the final shots. All the shots were focused on the same area in the centre of the screen and of course could be a little out, but it was the outer borders at f2.8 I was particularly interested in and all the images I took, whatever the difference in focus points, they produced similar results. At f9 they were fine.

Allan
 
I think you're nitpicking, to be honest.

I looked at that "2 hours parking" sign on the left hand edge. At full resolution the sign is about an inch square - but you have to remember that at this resolution the entire image would be half the size of my wall. Well, OK, about 4 feet by 2.5 feet. Unless you're in the habit of making huge prints then this isn't a particularly meaningful test.

Anyway, in both photos the small print on the sign is right on the limit of legibility (ie I can't quite read it, but if I squint I think I can!) on both photos. Any differences there really are minimal.
 
I agree about the sign, but it is well in front of the focus point and being able to read it at all on both images is good.
But, if you open both images full size and compare the right hand side, you will see a big difference between the two. Check out the pulpit ( metal railings at the front) on the yacht on the right and the cars in the distance, again, on the right side, and the masts.
Allan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top