ajay_ukidve1 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 <p>Hi,<br />I am getting a Tamron 17-50/2.8 screw drive AF Nikon mount lens for 200 USD used. It has no fungus, no marks on the lens nor does the body has any dings. I have tried it out on my D70s and looks ok. However I have read a few posts about it being soft at 2.8 all across the focal lengths. I am attaching 4 Pictures at 2.8 and 4 at the long and short end. Please comment if they are adequately sharp or not.<br /> Thanks in advance<br /> Ajay<br />Pune <img src="../photodb/folder?folder_id=1001898" alt="" /> </p> <p><a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=1001898">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1001898</a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drjoder Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 <p>Ajay, I have this lens--I bought it new for my D90, and I like it very much and have not had a problem with sharpness. When I look at your sample images, your lens seems quite sharp, at least on my monitor. Maybe the softness you refer to is a depth-of-field issue? I do see some softness in the corners of your images, especially at f/2.8, but this softness may simply be because your plane of focus was farther into the image and the items (like the chair) on the edges of the image are slightly out-of-focus. You might try a test in which you shoot something, like a wall, in which there is plenty of detail and texture, but everything is equidistant from the camera. If you do this, then any softness (assuming you focus correctly) would be lens softness and not a depth-of-field issue. Just some ideas...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajay_ukidve1 Posted April 3, 2011 Author Share Posted April 3, 2011 <p>Daniel, thank you very much for the prompt response.<br> I am also heart'nd by the fact that you are not having any issues with this lens coupled with the D90. I am getting my New D90 tomorrow and my D70s now retires to a standby body after 6 years of sterling service and yet fully serviceable.<br> Yes I think you are absolutely right regarding the softness. I too felt like that. Most probably it is a DOF issue at 2.8. However it laid my doubts to rest when you too thought that :). So I am going in for this lens. The Nikkor I cannot afford.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drjoder Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 <p>Oh, and as a previous poster has mentioned, this lens will perform better as you move away from f/2.8 and close it down more toward f/5.6...but, I have experienced pretty good sharpness even at f/2.8 as long as what I was shooting was in the plane of focus.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 <p>In-camera settings for JPG images and post processing (for RAW images) can have a dramatic effect on IQ. Keep that in mind when evaluating your images.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsands Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 <p>This lens shares equal duty with my Nikkor 70-300. I am extremely pleased with this lens; the biggest issue I face as 2.8 is, as another poster mentioned, razor-thin DoF. That's not the lens' fault. Outstanding bokeh, IMHO, very quick to focus. There's a lot of pix in my portfolio on PN using this lens; the MSTP folder is all with this lens, and a lot of them at 2.8. Where they are soft, it's because I missed focus. One example below.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajay_ukidve1 Posted April 3, 2011 Author Share Posted April 3, 2011 <p>Hi Rick,<br> Very nice picture. In fact its just a tad soft which is good. Wouldn't like crinkling sharp eyebrows, hair and skin. :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsands Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 <p>The file I posted was with virtually no PP. It can get a lot sharper as you desire.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramon_v__california_ Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 <p>Ajay, the subject (or image) would have called for an f/4 --- it was outdoor with sufficient light.<br />I bet you an f/5.6 would have done justice to it.</p> <p>Do not confine yourself to f/2.8 with that lens. Experiment. Have fun.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajay_ukidve1 Posted April 4, 2011 Author Share Posted April 4, 2011 <p>Hi Ramon,<br> Thanks. Yes you are absolutely right :). Actually it was for the purpose of testing to see how the lens performs at 2.8 and 4 did I shoot this way at 17 and 55. It is one of the sharpest lens I have used at 5.6 to 8 !! As good as the primes, one cant find fault. My main interest in getting this lens is for indoors and late evening street photography, shop fronts and sundry. I use the Tokina 50-135/2.8 extensively another gem. I thought this will compliment the Tokina nicely at the lower end. I travel a lot. Thanks.</p> <p>Ajay</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramon_v__california_ Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 <p>You have a good combo, Ajay. You can't go wrong there.</p> <p>I am also a third-party-lens person and prefer nowadays the lighter weight. Of course the first reason is I don't have deep pockets. My favorite combo when I shoot to get paid is the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8. I use them on two D90s......... And I see to it that I have the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 in my pocket.</p> <p>BTW, I started getting paid (while enjoying my hobby) with a D70s and the kit lens. I don't have the body anymore but still enjoying the 18-70mm for my everyday-carry camera -------- a D60.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now