I've recently taken delivery of a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC which I've not had a chance to use in anger but I've just done a small comparison of it with my other 2 lenses the Nikon 50mm f1.4 and the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR. Price wise the 17-50mm and the 50mm aren't miles apart but usually you'd expect the prime lens to the the sharper with better contrast. The 70-200mm is clearly more expensive and a totally different lens but as that the lens I have then I threw it in to the mix anyway.
So, it was dark when I did my test so I was indoors using flash. I chose my daughters High School Musical curtains and a Build-a-Bear as my subjects. The 17-50 and the 50mm were taken at 50mm and the 70-200mm at 70mm. Each crop is at 100% then resized so they are all the same. All images were taken at f3.2 so that none of them were wide open.
Here's the results:
Hopefully over the weekend I'll get out in natural daylight and give the Tamron more of a test at different focal lengths and apertures and I'll see if the results get any better. My first reaction is that the Tamron is nowhere near as sharp as either of the Nikon lenses and the contrast isn't as good either. I'm reserving judgement for now though.
So, it was dark when I did my test so I was indoors using flash. I chose my daughters High School Musical curtains and a Build-a-Bear as my subjects. The 17-50 and the 50mm were taken at 50mm and the 70-200mm at 70mm. Each crop is at 100% then resized so they are all the same. All images were taken at f3.2 so that none of them were wide open.
Here's the results:
Hopefully over the weekend I'll get out in natural daylight and give the Tamron more of a test at different focal lengths and apertures and I'll see if the results get any better. My first reaction is that the Tamron is nowhere near as sharp as either of the Nikon lenses and the contrast isn't as good either. I'm reserving judgement for now though.