Comment on Bob's Tamron 17-35mm test

[ulrich_brandl]

The test pages do not allow to add a comment (dead link ?) at the

moment therfore this post.

 

Bob again presented a very nice and comprehensive test on Tamron's

1:2.8-4 17-35mm Zoom. The information provided is very useful - but

the philosophy of the conclusions seems a bit strange.

 

If you ask is the Tamron 5x better than the EF-S 18-55mm (as its

costs 5x its price) you could continue: Is the 16-35mm L 12 times

better then the kit lens or 3x better than the Tamron... You can ask

this question always in comparing cheap and expensive glass. We are

alls used to pay a an unproportional premium for a faster lens, a

little bit more contrast or better corner sharpness.

 

IMHO the essential message of the test should be stressed a bit

more: This lens provides an optically good and fast wideangle add-on

for the many owners of a good 28-x lens at a reasonable price.

 

Ulrich

[digitmstr]

>>You can ask this question always in comparing cheap and expensive glass<<

 

And that's probably why it was mentioned.

 

There are literally countless posts here asking "is model X worth xxx times more than model Y?". It comes up all too often :0 and at least one of the answers remains the same: if it's worth it to you, the buyer.

 

But, for some it does make a real difference to know (even if only as a matter of opinion of the reviewer) that a particular lens is in fact NOT worth x time the price of what they may already have. Many would also automatically assume that 5 times the price equals 5 times the performance. Which is rarely the case in certain types of lenses.

[mark u]

To my mind, the more relevant question (which Bob hasn't been able to address very fully because he doesn't have other lenses available for testing) is: "How does this lens perform in comparison to competing lenses at a similar or higher price point, and what are the compromises in choosing this lens over more expensive glass?" Buying lenses is all about getting the best compromise that meets your needs at a price point you can afford.

[yakim_peled1]

I agree. Canon a 17-40/4 vs. Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 test is indeed in order.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[phyrpowr]

There was a pretty long thread earlier on these points, and more: the fact that only one sample (usually) is used, variations in QC among the brands, what is "twice as good" anyway (I started shooting in the early 1970s, when you REALLY had quality variations among lenses)

 

We still seem to have to read the reviews and hope for the best when we put the money down. At least with digital, and a good return policy at my local stores, I can do my own tests quickly. Bought a lens last Saturday at the local Wolf/Ritz outlet, returned it on Sunday after an apples-to-apples test with a lens I owned already

[bobatkins]

Ultimately you have to do your own test and decide for yourself. Buy from someone with a long and generous return policy and see for yourself. There are certainly sample to sample variations in lenses that make this a requirement whatever a published test indicates.

 

The point I was making is that to get, let's say, a 20% improvement in optical quality as measured by criteria such as resolution or contrast, you may have to pay 4x more for a lens. It's a question of diminishing returns.

 

Having used both the $100 18-55 lens and the $450 17-35 lens, for my style of shooting, which doesn't require f2.8 at 17mm, I think I'd probably be able to find a better use for the extra $350.

 

Not that the Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 isn't a decent lens, it is. I'd say that the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is better, but that's not much help to you if you want a 17-35 and not a 28-75. If you already have a 28-75/2.8 and the 18-55 kit lens is it worth $450 to cover 17-28mm with the Tamron or $600 with the Canon? My inclination is to say that it's not, and that the kit lens is pretty good, but that's just me.

 

Believe me, I'd love to have both a Canon 17-40/4L and a Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 DI to test side by side, but Canon, so far, have not been willing to loan lenses to photo.net for various reasons I won't go into. I keep asking, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for them to say yes.

 

It's interesting to note that few, if any, magazines do side by side tests of lenses. They have access to anything they want, yet they test lenses individually. Ever wonder why?

[gerry_szarek]

First I liked the review, the lens appears to be descent. Second why didn't Bob post a message looking to borrow a 17-40F4 from a photo.net user near his home/work could solve the canon will not send a lens for testing because of the moom phase (or whatever). I am sure that most photo.net'ers would love a minute of fame (ok 10 seconds).

[bobatkins]

I'm not prepared to take responsibility for the accidental damage of a user's lens. What if I don't damage it, but it breaks the day after the user gets it back. It would put me in an impossible position.

 

What if it gets damaged or lost in shipment? I know packages can be insured, but have you ever tried filing a claim? I have. It took months to get my money back.

 

I'm just not prepared to accept the responsibility. It's different when dealing with a company. If a lens breaks, they fix it. If something gets lost in the mail, they wait for compensation. It's all part of doing business.

[ulrich_brandl]

Another remark. I think Bob's copy of the Tamron wasn't the best. I cannot reproduce its weaknesses at its long end. The copy I have tested was sharp at its long end - I can't imagine that it isn't better than the kit lens. Ok, such variations between individual lenses are well known and very undesirable.

 

Ulrich<div></div>

[ulrich_brandl]

The same picture taken with the Canon 28-135mm IS at 35mm. I don't have the kit lens, the 28-135 is not stellar but a quite reputable lens. Focus was well controlled in bot pictures.

 

Ulrich<div></div>