Tamron 17-35, Any good?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by TomD., Aug 22, 2008.

  1. TomD.

    TomD.

    181
    Jun 7, 2007
    Dallas, Texas
    Since getting my D700 I need to go wider. I have the 12 - 24 which I have enjoyed on my DX cameras but do not want to use on the D700. In googling the Tamron 17-35 I have not see a lot of feedback on IQ.
    I have really good glass and am wondering if it make sense to add this len.
    Here are some of my options.
    1. Buy the Tamron 17-35
    2. But the Nikon 20 -35. Reports are not glowing and it is not cheap.
    3. Sell 12 -24 and buy Nikon 17 -35 used. Ready the 35mm is weak.
    4. Wait to save $$$, sell the 12 -24 and buy 14 - 24. I HATE waiting and I concerned about the weight of the 14 -24.

    So lusters, what are your thoughts on the Tamron 17-35 and my options 1-4 ?
    Thanks,
    Tom
     
  2. weiran

    weiran

    966
    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
  3. pforsell

    pforsell

    Jan 15, 2008
    Also Sigma has a total of four wide zooms for the FX sensor:

    • 12-24 HSM
    • 15-30
    • 17-35 HSM
    • 20-40 f/2.8

    Many people like the 12-24 because of it's low distortion which makes it a very good architecture lens.
     
  4. Right now I have both the Nikkor 18-35 and the Tamron 17-35, and I've shot both on the D700 to evaluate for a landscape trip.

    At f/5.6 both the 18-35 and 17-35 are showing soft corners, but no obvious vignetting on full frame.

    At f/8 both the 18-35 and 17-35 sharpen up very nice, side to side. The Tamron has slightly better corners than the Nikkor at f/8.

    At f/11 (nice landscape aperture) the Nikkor 18-35 and Tamron 17-35 deliver all you want, and really only the 14-24 (which I've also owned) will outperform either significantly. f/11 - both lenses do very very well. Sharpness looks equal.

    I shot some test frames, and I had to check the EXIF if not looking at the corners to tell the lenses apart.

    Executive summary - The 17-35 works VERY well indeed :) 
     
  5. tfenne

    tfenne

    125
    Apr 10, 2008
    Cambridge, MA
    You might find this thread of interest:
    https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=183622

    I'm also trying to figure out a good wide angle option for FX that won't break the bank. The two top contenders from the thread I started seemed to be the Sigma 15-30 which is quite cheap and quite highly regarded and the various Nikkor 20mm primes. I still haven't decided though!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2017
  6. weiran

    weiran

    966
    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
    As Peter suggests I've tried the Sigma 12-24, and it is a unique lens in having next to no distortion, AND being the widest rectinlinear lens in production (ever?). I used it on film and produced some great results. I'd look into it, but note that you can't have a filter on it without the clunky adaptor and it'll vignette with a filter at 12mm on FF.
     
  7. TomD.

    TomD.

    181
    Jun 7, 2007
    Dallas, Texas
    Great feedback. Thank you. The Sigma looks interesting but is almost $800.00 new.
    Any thoughts on Nikon 17 - 35 as it relates in IQ to the lenses discussed above ?
     
  8. weiran

    weiran

    966
    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
  9. Hi Puddleduck,

    Between getting an Nikon 18-35 and a Tamron 17-35, which would you get? Apparently buying a new Tamron is cheaper, but if I could pick up a used 18-35, which one? Thanks! I like the fact the Nikon is a Nikon. I always feel cheap using a third party lens...sniff, sniff! :tongue:


     
  10. Regarding the Sigma 17-35

    I had a copy for about 3 days that I got on sale from Amazon. It's performance on DX was pretty poor. It was very soft opened up, and didn't really sharpen up even at f/8. The few reviews I found were favorable for the most part, with some duds. I wonder if it was just my sample, as my 24-60 is a great lens, at least on DX. The 17-35 did have HSM, which was nice, and handled well over all. But the IQ was bunk. Mine was the newer 77mm filter thread with a red ring, by the way, which was supposed to be better than the 82mm version.
     
  11. I got a PM asking for image samples, so I went and shot some specially, a quick half hour wander around Cambridge, so apologies for the subject matter :) 

    These are all straight out the camera out-of-the-camera JPEG, just re-sized for display here, no PP! All EXIF intact. Did not use a C-Pol, although with the blue skies it looks like it!



    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    The lens is sharp, no vignetting and a bit of a bargain :) 
     
  12. Thanks Andy- those are very nice. (I tried to PM you thanks but your box was full.) Good luck with your sale.
     
  13. Hey Andy, why are you selling it then? I'm seriously thinking of pulling the trigger on this lens. Is so darn cheap, but the samples and reviews look really good. It's between this and spending the big bucks on a 17-35 AFS. This Tamron has me seriously considering it.
     


  14. I'm selling my 18-35 as well. The Tamron outperforms it in all honesty, not by much but its there at 100%.

    Too be honest, I still fancy the Nikkor 17-35, so I must be more of a lens snob than I thought! :mad: 

    I'll be honest though, the way the Tamron is performing I really wonder if the Nikkor is going to be a whole lot better? Because its hard to faul the Tammy on optical terms. OK at f/5.6 corners are not amazing (but no worse than many DX wide angles) but at landscape apertures around f/8 - f/11 it really looks good :) 
     
  15. Believe me I fancy the Nikon just as much (I still envy the Nikon 500, despite having the Sigma 500), but the Tamron 17-35 is going for dirt cheap in the US and I just sold my 17-55. Loved the lens, but I really want a crossover FX/DX lens kit. Just feels like a downgrade in my mind going Tamron! (I'm a snob, I know!)
     
  16. Agreed.

    I quite like my "Boats" shot for a test shot. so I've taken the NEF into Lightroom and cloned out some debris and used the "Direct Postive" preset.


    [​IMG]

    Really can't see much wrong with this Tamron at all...
     
  17. TomD.

    TomD.

    181
    Jun 7, 2007
    Dallas, Texas
    Okay, I ended my misery. I bought a used Nikon 17-35 and am selling my 12 -24. Since I own all Nikon glass, I decided not to by non-nikon glass. Probably an expensive decision but in the end I should be happy.
    J.
    My advise is to do the same.
    Thank you for all your great comments and suggestions.
    Tom
     
  18. Hi Jonathan

    I've just got a Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 (for £525 UK pounds) which is about $975 in your currency. Mint, so I think I'd be daft to turn it down.

    I'm going to do a Tamron - Nikkor 17-35 comparision, because my gut feeling is there isn't going to be much differnece... but we'll see :biggrin:
     
  19. If I had a DX and FX body, and a Nikkor 12-24mm that I could sell... it seems the clear choice to me would be the Sigma 12-24mm HSM. It's the same FOV on DX and CRAZY wide on FX. The Tamron 17-35mm is a solid lens and great for the price it can be had, but the 12-24mm HSM to replace your Nikkor 12-24mm DX gives you a lens that's extremely wide on either body and is rediculously wide on an FX sensor.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.