nishnishant

I don't have complete information here, as I last used a 17-55 on 12mp and never used a 16-80, but if the 16-80 is as good as people say it is it sounds like a great everyday option, if you don't mind $1000 for an everyday lens. The Sigma 2-lens kit sounds great, but it's 5 pounds of lenses! Personally that's not what I'd be looking for in a DX kit. I have a Nikon 24-70 lens at 2 pounds and even that feels like a burden to carry if I'm on my feet. If those are the focal lengths you want, and you want f/1.8, and don't mind the weight, the $1600 price tag for the pair isn't bad by today's standards. But I think I'd still go with the 16-80 because it's 1 pound and you can go all day without switching lenses. The 16-85 was a decent lens last time I used it (borrowed from my father, on 16mp; at the time I was back in school and doing a lot of eBay for fun and profit, trying to get as much as I could out of cheap used glass) but later I got lured away from DX DSLRs by Fuji, which does a better job as a travel kit. Three primes and a rangefinder, that's portable.

I agree the pricing is steep. Funnily enough, the lens is 1050-ish but if you buy the D7500 with this lens, it's 1400. You get the 7500 for an extra 350 bucks when the camera body sells for 750. I guess if you are adventurous enough, you could buy the kit, then sell the body for say 600 and save an extra 250 on the lens. I just don't want to bother with the hassle myself.

The zoom on my 16-80 is a little stiff, but I think the slight increase in resistance at the 35-40 point has lessened a little over time, as I hardly notice it now. It's still there, though. I don't mind a little zoom stiffness as it beats my previous 16-85 which required a rubber band to stop the zoom creep.

Yeah it's better stiff than if it's too loose :-)

I have two 16-80 in the house, both behave in a similar fashion: their zoom rings are stiffer between 16 and 35 and then loosen up a bit beyond that; I attribute this to the dual cam design of the zoom and consider it normal. One of our lenses has seen vastly more use than the other - the behavior of the two is identical.

Just curious, why do you have 2 of them?

I have two 16-80 in the house, both behave in a similar fashion: their zoom rings are stiffer between 16 and 35 and then loosen up a bit beyond that; I attribute this to the dual cam design of the zoom and consider it normal. One of our lenses has seen vastly more use than the other - the behavior of the two is identical.

Thank you, glad to hear it's not an anomaly on my piece :-)

From a quick comparison on the internet it appears that the 17-55 is significantly sharper than the 16-80 at all comparable focal lengths so modern does not always mean better. So is range and VR more important for your purposes?

Hey John, while VR and the additional range on both ends were important, weight was also a factor. And while I know some of this is subjective, quite a few folks said sharpness is comparable between the two lenses. Thanks.

I haven't tried the 17-55 but really like the 16-80 on my D7100. I like the range for traveling, and would miss both extremes if I didn't have them. On a D7100 it's sharp enough that if 80 is a little short you can get away with some cropping,. The VR is quite good too. I can''t compare it to the 17-55 but it seems better for flare than either the 16-85 or the 18-140, and the front element stays clean and doesn't seem to fog up as badly in harsh weather.

 

It may not matter much, but I like the squared-off hood on the 16-80. Though bulky, it's fairly sturdy, latches on well, and has enough clearance that you can turn a polarizing filter with it on.

 

e.t.a. and, again perhaps not worth much, but the hood, though it still shades the internal flash close up, is not as bad as some, and it sits nicely on a table top.

Thank you, appreciate the info.

Way back in 2004, I bought the 17-55mm/f2.8 DX, and it was excellent on the D2X (12MP, 2005) in those days. You D7100 has 24MP and much better high-ISO results. I would get a modern lens. The 16-80 is a good choice.

Thank you, Shun.

From your description, I, too, would suspect the problem is in the lens. Check the contacts on the lens and gently clean them. If the lens has a Manual / AF switch, cycle It several times to clean the switch contacts and be sure it is fully in the AF position. If that does not help, send the lens back to Tamron.

Thank you. I only want to send it to Tamron as a last resort. If I can resolve this on my own, that'd be splendid.

I am doing more tests today. The D80 with the Tamron lens does not really seem to have any focus issues at f/2.8. But then the images are lower res in the D80 so it's not an exact comparison with the 7100. Also the 7100 with the Nikon 18-105 seems to be focusing well too. I am not sure what I can do if the problem is specifically with the 7100 using the Tamron. Neither Tamron nor Nikon will want to help me resolve that.

Thanks for posting that Matthew. I don't think I've ever seen anything as clear-cut when I've changed my AF fine tune settings.

 

I've always found the whole process a bit haphazard, if not downright random!

 

Although the difference is that you've used a prime, while most of my need for AF adjustment has been on zooms that vary between front focus at wideangle to back focus at telephoto. And that ain't a happenin' thing.

Yeah, the f/1.4 helped to isolate out the focus point difference pretty well. Also I assume not all cameras (even same model) have the same AF fine tune behavior either.

I would suspect the lens too. Though of course much depends on how tests are done, how consistent a lens is, and many other things, I thought to give a quick and dirty view of the fine tuning range I get in the D7100. This is a quickie couple of shots, in which I am using a 50/1.4D lens in a D7100, set to 1.4, hand held, aimed at the 48 inch point on a tape measure. I am sitting on a couch, the tape on the floor, and the target is roughly six feet away. Using poor initial light, flash, and no subsequent sharpening, here is the result (heavily cropped too, of course). [ATTACH=full]1203637[/ATTACH]

Awesome - thank you, Matthew. I did not see that much of a difference, but I was shooting at f/2.8.

The problem with applying AF fine tune to a zoom is that it's only truly accurate at one focal length setting. And that's why I say it's a body lottery.

Ah, thanks. That makes sense.

Also I have the non VR lens too. I got the VR version first (VC in Tamron verbiage) but had multiple issues with two copies and then was advised that the non-VC version is a better lens overall.

I did some tests today with two bodies - a D80 and a D7100, and two lenses - Nikon 18-105 and Tamron 17-50.Here are my findings. Took pics at 17/18mm and 50mm. Wide open. Means the Tamron was at f/2.8 while the Nikon varied between f/3.5 and f/4.5.

1. D80 + Nikon lens : focus was as sharp as I'd expect at both 18 mm and 50mm. It was sharper at 50mm incidentally.
   
2. D7100 + Nikon lens : focus was sharp at both 18 mm and 50 mm. At 18 mm it was slightly sharper than with the D80 - possibly because of the 7100's better AF capabilities.
   
3. D80 + Tamron lens : soft at 17mm and 50mm. I can't tell if it's back or front focus for sure but I lean towards back focus based on my zooming in.
   
4. D7100 + Tamron lens : soft at 17mm and 50mm with it being really bad at 17mm.
   

Now the bizarre thing is that while both the D80 and 7100 were soft with the Tamron, the D80 was slightly better at 17mm. I am surprised because it's a way older camera with an older gen AF mechanism. I wonder if the higher resolution of the 7100 allowed me to zoom in closer and notice the softness more.

But to summarize, at this point I am 99.99% convinced the lens is faulty. I am going to call Tamron and speak to them about the warranty. I have only used Nikon lenses in the past and it was with great reluctance that I bought a Tamron. I hope their support experience won't be bad. I'll keep this thread updated.

Thanks everyone for their help and suggestions.

If you have any other AF lenses, why not try fine tuning one of them, purposely wrong? It will only take a few minutes since you need not be precise. You can put the lens on and arbitrarily set it way off. Then try it with fine tune turned on and turned off. Shoot something that is fairly easy to tell, like a diagonal of a tape measure laid on the floor. If the two shots are visibly different, you know the camera's fine tuning is working. You can return to the menu and delete a setting you don't want to keep.

Hey Matthew,

I tested that today with a known good lens. And it did have an impact but it's marginal and I had to really come close to the subject to minimize the DOF to see the effect. So the tuning is *really* fine I suppose. With the sort of serious back/front focus I have, the fine tune is possibly not the solution. It's probably good for people who want their pictures to be pixel-perfect and they notice a 1 mm difference in focusing.

Hey Hector, I haven't had a chance to test the body with other lenses as well as test this lens with another body. I intend to do multi-lens multi-body testing, and will post the results here.

Just bought this lens 3 months ago and actually got good results in combination with my 7100. I went back and looked at the full res images taken 2 months ago and they look good, although at the pixel level some of them don't look as sharp consistently as older photos taken with Nikon primes (50 mm and 35 mm 1.8) but that may just be me right now.

I was just taken aback at the AF fine tune not doing anything. If you think that indicates a camera issue, that's worrying. The Tamron is at least in warranty.

Thanks for the response.

I've been having some major focusing issues with the Tamron 17-50 (at any focal length or f-stop) and before sending it to Tamron, I thought I'd try the AF Fine Tune. Trouble is that dialing in any value has zero impact on the focus. I am not talking about whether I've correctly figured out whether it's a back focus or front focus issue, I am saying dialing in any number (between -20 and +20) has no effect on the produced image. Tripod, full manual, essentially same lighting conditions (shots taken a few seconds apart). Does this mean the AF Fine Tune is not working or does it mean the Tamron lens has defects that need to be fixed?

Thank you.

<blockquote>

<p>I paid somewhat less in £UK for that lens nearly a year ago. It's a superb lens. I recently did a direct comparison with a Nikon f/2.8 17-55 and Tamron quite convincingly beat it at f/2.8. The Tamron appeared to be about half-a-stop brighter as well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What do you mean by 1/2 a stop brighter? So at the same f-stop, shutter speed, ISO - the two lenses would produce differently exposed images?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However the Tamron doesn't really reach 50mm (at 2.5 metres focus) it's more like 45mm and covers a noticeably wider field than the Nikkor when both are set to the 50mm zoom marking.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you, that is good to know.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>They are in the process, it seems, of closing this lens out at $299. Availability is uneven in the major mail order houses, BH, Adorama etc. This is a very good lens but I believe the Sigma lens is the better buy at $399 most places with image stabilization and according to photozone de it is slightly sharper than the Tamron. Good hunting!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I looked at the Sigma first - for $100 more you also get image stabilization, but that lens and the D7100 have a firmware incompatibility - the OS won't shut off for 1 minute. This affects battery life + image preview. Known bug fixed in the 7200 so I am out of luck with my camera body.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would make sure that Amazon themselves is selling it, and it is Nikon F mount (assuming you are using a Nikon DX body).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks Shun, and yeah this is for a 7100. </p>