FAO Puddleduck - 17-35mm

S

Steveo_Hants

Messages
763
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey Andy, I've tried sending you this in PM but your inbox is full. Did you/do you own a Nikon 17-35mm? I have seen posts where you say the Tamron 17-35 is very close to the Nikon and was wondering if you every tried them side by side?

Thanks

Steve
 
Hi

Yes, I have both. They are really really close. The Nikon is better at 17mm, at 35mm the Tamron is a tad better - at least in the center.

The only really difference between the lenses is build quality and cost, and corner sharpness where the Nikon does have the edge but in all honesty the Nikon isn't worth 4x the price in pure optical terms. Although overall the Nikon is the better lens. I did test these side by side.

For my Sony A900, I use a Konica Minolta 17-35 which is actually the Tamron 17-35 with a new paint job, the Tamron 17-35 is a superb optic and works well with D700 (I imagine it'll be OK with a D3X too as the KM 17-35 is certainly good enough for the Sony A900).
 
I have been looking at Tamron too (28-75 2.8) as that range would be better for me than my 17-55 2.8 nikon. I do like my Nikon but often need just that bit extra. What puts me off is the fact that AF seems slower on the Tamron, especially at low light (although this seems to affect the newer inbuilt motor one more than the older one). A lot of my pics are of kids so do need quick AF (and my Nikon is very quick). Would expect the 17-35 to be the same, so if you dont need fast AF you should be ok.
 
The 17-35 has very quick focusing - its body driven, so limited by the camera body torque strength.

Its a one quarter turn of the focus ring to go from close up to infinity - ie VERY FAST.

The older body drive Tamron's are all very fast to focus.
 
puddleduck said:
Hi

Yes, I have both. They are really really close. The Nikon is better at 17mm, at 35mm the Tamron is a tad better - at least in the center.

The only really difference between the lenses is build quality and cost, and corner sharpness where the Nikon does have the edge but in all honesty the Nikon isn't worth 4x the price in pure optical terms. Although overall the Nikon is the better lens. I did test these side by side.

For my Sony A900, I use a Konica Minolta 17-35 which is actually the Tamron 17-35 with a new paint job, the Tamron 17-35 is a superb optic and works well with D700 (I imagine it'll be OK with a D3X too as the KM 17-35 is certainly good enough for the Sony A900).
Click to expand...

Cheers Andy I think I have made my mind up. The Tamron it is!
 
puddleduck said:
The older body drive Tamron's are all very fast to focus.
Click to expand...

Dont expect it to be as fast as the Nikon, but in the real world is there really that much difference (thinking more of the 28-75), especially in low light? I know you cant really compare the two, but the 90mm Tamron Macro is very slow to AF, and while my nikon 70-300VR is not the slowest AF out there it is quite a bit slower than the 17-55.
 
Macro lenses are always slow to focus in macro scenarioes due the the very narrow depth of field.

I can manually focus quicker, and always do so, so I don't think that would be typical of Tamron performance, even with the newer ones with built-in motors.

As to the 28-75, well in low-light the newer ones with built-in motors will be slower than the 17-55 no question. And if they "miss" they will go on a big old hunt.

The older version on a D700 (and probably a D300 but I never tried that combo) will focus very fast, but I suspect the 17-55 would be quicker.

Probably Nikon's fastest focusing lens is the 24-70 f/2.8 AF-S, thats noticeably quicker than pretty much anything else from Nikon or 3rd parties.
 
Andy, one other thing I forgot to ask you, did you notice any difference in colour rendition between the Tamron and Nikkor?
 
Steveo_Hants said:
Andy, one other thing I forgot to ask you, did you notice any difference in colour rendition between the Tamron and Nikkor?
Click to expand...

No difference that I could tell - I didn't do a direct compaision but when I compared a Tamron 17-35 with a Nikon 18-35 (a lens I do not recommend, the Tamron smokes it) colours, metering and exposure where all identical.
 
puddleduck said:
No difference that I could tell - I didn't do a direct compaision but when I compared a Tamron 17-35 with a Nikon 18-35 (a lens I do not recommend, the Tamron smokes it) colours, metering and exposure where all identical.
Click to expand...

I am just about to make my purchase of D700 and lens. I could just scrape together enough funds for the nikon 17-35 at a push, what you reckon, stretch to the Nikon or do you think its not worth it and go with the Tamron?
 
Steveo_Hants said:
I am just about to make my purchase of D700 and lens. I could just scrape together enough funds for the nikon 17-35 at a push, what you reckon, stretch to the Nikon or do you think its not worth it and go with the Tamron?
Click to expand...

Difficult one - when Mifsuds were selling the Tamron 17-35 for £150 it was a no-brainer but I think they sold out now.

I do really rate the Tamron (I've used it for my D700 and also the Minolta re-badge) and I can't fault it.

If you buy a Nikon 17-35 it'll be used, and you have got a much greater chance of getting a faulty Nikon than a faulty Tamron. Many Nikkors are approaching end of life, so are starting to see motor failures. Don't buy a Nikkor 17-35 with a squeaky motor - its a £450+ repair bill waiting to happen.

Both are excellent optically so its really down to budget.
 
puddleduck said:
Difficult one - when Mifsuds were selling the Tamron 17-35 for £150 it was a no-brainer but I think they sold out now.

I do really rate the Tamron (I've used it for my D700 and also the Minolta re-badge) and I can't fault it.

If you buy a Nikon 17-35 it'll be used, and you have got a much greater chance of getting a faulty Nikon than a faulty Tamron. Many Nikkors are approaching end of life, so are starting to see motor failures. Don't buy a Nikkor 17-35 with a squeaky motor - its a £450+ repair bill waiting to happen.

Both are excellent optically so its really down to budget.
Click to expand...

I've found somewhere over here in Oz that has some new Nikkor 17-35's, would that change your advice?
 
Steveo_Hants said:
I've found somewhere over here in Oz that has some new Nikkor 17-35's, would that change your advice?
Click to expand...

Over here a new 17-35 will cost around $AU 2300. How does that compare with your price?

Its a lens that if you buy at the right price you won't lose money on.
 
puddleduck said:
Over here a new 17-35 will cost around $AU 2300. How does that compare with your price?

Its a lens that if you buy at the right price you won't lose money on.
Click to expand...

$AU 1747 plus P&P. Obviously grey imports. What you reckon?
 
Steveo_Hants said:
$AU 1747 plus P&P. Obviously grey imports. What you reckon?
Click to expand...

so about a grand... make sure that is really is new (serial will start with a 4) and not something that been sat on a shelf for years. A serial starting with 2 could be 10 years old (nothing wrong with that if the motor doesn't squeak)
 
puddleduck said:
so about a grand... make sure that is really is new (serial will start with a 4) and not something that been sat on a shelf for years. A serial starting with 2 could be 10 years old (nothing wrong with that if the motor doesn't squeak)
Click to expand...

So would you say at that price I should scrape the funds together to get it rather then the Tamron?
 
Its really up to you.

Personally no I woudn't pay that for one (and didn't), as the Tamron does very well for 4x less.

You have a D300 as well, and I definately would not pay a grand to put a lens on a camera that going to crop off most of the frame!

If you had a D3X I'd probably say the Nikkor...
 
puddleduck said:
Its really up to you.

Personally no I woudn't pay that for one (and didn't), as the Tamron does very well for 4x less.

You have a D300 as well, and I definately would not pay a grand to put a lens on a camera that going to crop off most of the frame!

If you had a D3X I'd probably say the Nikkor...
Click to expand...

Ok I think I will go with the Tamron then, btw I am purchasing the lens along with a D700.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top