Did I goof!

Hi all,

I went on ebay the other day and won a Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 VC Nikon mount, but after reading a few

reviews did I goof. A few of the reviewer said that it's soft, does anyone have experience with the lens. I only

paid about $100.00 for it so it can't be that bad right??

 

Thanks

At that price if it works, you did good.

 

People who review lens tend to unfairly compare to lenses that are much more expensive and thus, have all the bells and whistles to make them great lens. Odds are you will be happy with the lens.

I could ask the same question about a different lens, which was an impulse buy that I received today. I was the only bidder on a Nikkor 43-86mm f/3.5 AI lens that was auctioned off with a starting price of $39. Was curious about this storied lens and had read that the AI version was much improved over the original design. I figured it couldn't be that bad, what with various users in this 9-year-old thread, including Bjørn Rørslett, praising the AI version with words like "tack sharp", "unbelievable", "acceptable", and "not bad at all" — the last two encomiums from B.R. himself.

 

Well, sorry to say, in terms of image quality, this is the worst lens I've ever owned. At the short end, the degree of field curvature and coma the lens possesses is breathtakingly bad. The edges of the frame (not to speak of the corners!) are utter garbage unless I stop down to f/11. At the long end matters are scarcely better, requiring "only" f/8 for the edges to be acceptable. And the pincushion distortion! Like the proverbial funhouse mirror.

 

In the lens's defense, it must be admitted the center of the frame is quite sharp by f/5.6 at both ends of the zoom range. And the build quality is typical old-school Nikon: excellent. One other shortcoming, however, is that this lens is unusually difficult to focus. Partly because of the long, 180-degree focus throw, but probably mostly due to its terrible lack of sharpness wide open, the viewfinder image never really snaps into focus. I have to rely on the focus confirmation dot much more than with other lenses, but then, the weirdly large angle of rotation through which I can turn the focusing ring while the center dot remains steadily lit is quite discomfiting.

 

I guess $39 was not a bad price for a very handsome, very well-constructed paperweight.

Clark, I have the non-VC version of Tamron's SP 17-50, and it's a pin-sharp lens. It equals my 17-55 f/2.8 zoom Nikkor in image quality, at about half the weight and size, and a fraction of the cost.

 

Only drawback is that the long end appears to be nowhere near to 50mm at portrait distances, but it still covers a very useful range.

 

OK, this doesn't really answer your question about the VC version. I too read some reviews claiming the VC version was a bit soft, which is why I opted for the non-VC version. However, I think those reviews might have been comparing the VC and non-VC versions. If so, then a small amount of absolute sharpness might be a reasonable compromise in exchange for the benefit of Tamron's superb VC. It depends on your shooting style, and if you do a lot of handheld shooting in poor light, then the VC version will most likely deliver a higher proportion of sharp shots than a lens without VR/VC/OS/IS.

 

In short, I sometimes wish I'd opted for the VC version when the light isn't too good. The 17-50 compact and lightweight Tamron obviously makes an ideal walk-around lens, and the addition of VC makes it even more useful.

 

Hope you enjoy it!

The most expensive piece of equipment is one which does not do what you need.

 

Corollary - Buy cheap, buy twice.

I purchased the VC version years ago. It was a great investment. Very sharp at all ranges and well built. Have fun with the purchase an be your own photographer!

I bought a non-VC Tamron 17-50 on local Craigslist almost 1 year ago. A D7000 with the lens had been listed forever so I asked if the seller would take $140 for just the lens (the average selling price on eBay at the time).

 

I couldn't be happier with the lens - sharp and I swear the colors are more vibrant without any in-camera adjustment.

 

Eric Sande

Some lenses, and these here are in that category, are intended as sort-of 'starter' lenses. They are cheap enough that you really don't get taken, and they are good enough that spending twice as much would never give you results twice as good.

 

They also are often light-weight lenses that you will probably want to keep for 'walkabout' when you do get more expensive, but much heavier, lenses.

28-80mm G Nikon 3.3-5.6 is a terrific lens for taking pictures, not so much as to looks or build quality.

I use mine more than I will admit to.

The most expensive piece of equipment is one which does not do what you need.

 

Corollary - Buy cheap, buy twice.

 

- That might be good advice if people's pockets were infinitely deep. OTOH, having a cheap item that serves the purpose is far better than having nothing at all.

 

I've had my Tamron SP 17-50 for a few years now. It gets far more use than the over-engineered and overly-heavy Nikon 17-55, and shows no sign at all of wearing out. Image quality is so close to that of the Nikkor that it's quite impossible to tell pictures from them apart without looking at the EXIF metadata.

 

"Buy cheap, buy something else with the saving."

That would be a better epithet.

 

And if that lens is Tamron's idea of 'starter level', I can't wait for them to bring out their pro-level range.

Clark, The specs on Optical Limits and DXO show that if you stop down to f4 you should get fine results. Granted there is more to a lens than resolution but it's a good starting point. As well your choice is a fixed aperture lens that should be nice and bright. I doubt you have anything at all to lose so congratulations on your new baby. Stay frosty.

2Oceans I received the lens yesterday and so far it's pretty nice. Wide open it's a little soft at times not as bad as the

credit's have said, wide open is hard for any zoom but closed down it's really sharp. the only problem like the seller said

the zoom is stiff when set at 17mm, when you zoom up it's good. Well for $100.00 dollars I'll use it as is till I get it

fixed or go inside it myself.

Edited October 6, 2018 by clark_roberts

So far looks good.

Nikon D2X with the 17-50mm f2.8 VC 1/40@5.6

 

Hi all, Well now I know why the lens went cheap, I took off the rear mount to check the lens out and I found

the brass washer's full of corrosion, so I took the lens apart deeper and found two of the flex cables connections

were corroded as well. I cleaned them both and they look good, nice and gold again. I just have to clean off the

two brass washes and put it all back together.

Done all put back together, I used Flitz polish on the flex cable gold contact's and they came out good, then

No 7 Chrome and metal Polish on the Brass washer's which cleaned it quite nicely. Cleaned all the plastic up

and the bayonet mount, the autofocus seems to work quicker in both direction now before one direction

was quicker than the other.