Tamron 17-50think i got a dodgy copy

C

cuprajake

Messages
247
Edit My Images
Yes
hey guy's

bought a tamron 17-5o 2.8vc yesterday, was initally impressed with it, but saw a slight blurring in some pics, so decided to do a quick comparison,

here are the results

both done at the same focal lenght, on the same tripod, just switched out lens and used a remote too,

tamron

tamron by cuprajake1, on Flickr

nikon

nikon by cuprajake1, on Flickr

cropped in

tamron

tamycrop by cuprajake1, on Flickr

nikon

nikoncrop by cuprajake1, on Flickr

im not impressed to say the least so looks like the lens is going back:(

got it fro jessops so i take it the will just refund me?

jake
 
Make sure image stabilisation is off, it's only meant to be on for handhold situations. And, maybe I'm just getting old and mad (and blind), but the Tamron one looks fine to me... maybe even better? Anyone agree?
 
Maybe vc, looks something similar to what i have with a sigma, they said its a slight focus deviation and required a calibration. Edit Looks fine except for slight ghosting. Id get a replacement.
 
Last edited:
its the ghosting im seeing,

both lens had vr and vc on actually, so wonder if it could of been that, but cant see it causing that. its annoying as at this price point there really isnt many options for 2.8 lenses!!
 
looks fine to me in both pics.
Like said if left the stabalizer on it will not give a clear pic on a tripod

spike
 
Tamron looks better to me. Especially as itstaken at a lower aperture than the Nikon.

The ghosting is quite normal for a low aperture like that.
You are worrying over nothing.
 
Last edited:
I was quite surprised the Tamron seems much sharper than the nikon !

R33SY
 
In the pics I can't really see much of a difference if any but cropped in the Tamron is obviously sharper than the Nikon.
 
I would still say there is nothing wrong with that lens.

What do you think is wrong with it????
spike
 
Looks fine to me too, as good as the Nikon!
 
just doens seem as sharp, i suppose it depends upon the crop, the nikon does look sharper,

the vc off makes a big difference though - facepalm haha
 
There really isnt a lot in that. The Nikon is a touch sharper, but hardly by much.
Could probably be matched by adding a touch more sharpening to the tamron in PP.
 
perhaps im expecting too much my inital mistake and worry was the ghosting caused by the vc on the tripod, but its wierd how the nikon doesnt get any distortion with it on whilst on the tripod, suppose thats just the better quality of a oem lens
 
cuprajake said:
perhaps im expecting too much my inital mistake and worry was the ghosting caused by the vc on the tripod, but its wierd how the nikon doesnt get any distortion with it on whilst on the tripod, suppose thats just the better quality of a oem lens
Click to expand...

Some lenses have vr/is/OS tripod detection. I'm guessing the Nikon has it while the tamron doesn't?
 
Last edited:
Some lenses do ghost at lower apertures even without VC. My 70-200 VR f/2.8 used to do it. Just stop down a bit and it goes away.
 
ah, i think i remeber reading about that, basically camera/lens realises its too still to be held and turns off,

so its a keeper then,

it does hint a little in low light at f2.8 but im guessing that the low light plus such a small dof makes it hard sometimes, this was on dynamic focus, i switched to centred and it was alot better.
 
Biggest difference between the two images is the exposure level...

What are the two lenses you're comparing here? And what exactly are your settings?
 
I reckon you are clutching at straws there mate, there is nothing wrong with the Tamron as far as I can see. In fact in the first set the Tamron looked shaper, I think sometimes if you look hard enough you (or anyone) can find fault in anything
 
In the first shots you posted the tamron looks sharper in the 100% crop but looking at the full image it looks like the nikon was stopped down more because the items behind the bottle look more in focus. That would suggest the tamron is sharper even at a wider aperture than the nikon.

The second shots both at f5 the nikon looks slightly sharper.


In your final two shots handheld, the tamron wins again.
 
Second series of shots - the Jack Daniels part looks ever so slightly cleaner on the Nikon, but at the same time at the address part of the label, I think the Tamron wins. Still don't exactly get the problem, both of those lenses probably far outresolve your D80 besides.
 
The last two pics are both the tamron, just handheld vs tripod. To show how well the tamron vc works. My main concern was the first two original pics with ghosting. I was asked to turn vc/vr off and this stopped that problem which gave the second set of results, which I'm happy with. Like I say the last set was just to show tarons handheld capabilities. For the record should anyone read the thread in the futre the lenes are nikon 18-55vr and tamron 17-50 2.8 vc
 
really does look fine to me?

The non vc is known to be slightly sharper but your copy looks good
 
cuprajake said:
really helps if you know what your doing haha
Click to expand...
Yes it does. Nearly every time we see a "my lens is soft/faulty" thread, it turns out to be because the user's testing technique was flawed. This is another such, but the good news is that your lens is fine.
 
you know, with this bing my first non nikon lens, i didnt give the vc a thought, as both the vr lenses i have react fine on tripod, which is wierd, but as said they may have the sensor in them, i now need to drill into my head tripod = vc off or all my shots will blurrrrrr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top