Tamron 17-35 F2.8-F4 compared to Nikon 16-35 F4 VR?

[sinar]

Hello,

I have a Tamron 17-35 F2.8-F4 that I use on my Nikon D700, I was wondering if anyone who has used this lens has upgraded to the Nikon 16-35 F4 VR and could comment on if it was a noticeable upgrade?

I use the tamron mostly for landscapes so tend to stop down a bit, but sometimes shoot building interiors and was wondering if the VR on the Nikon would help in lower light, enabling my to use lower shutter speeds.

I'm also interested in the image quality differences between the two,

Thanks for reading

Julie

 

[Summit_PG]

I was wondering the same things Julie. I just bought a used 16-35 vr, so I will report back once it gets here. So if anyone wants a minty used Tamron 17-35, let me know!

 

[sinar]

I was wondering the same things Julie. I just bought a used 16-35 vr, so I will report back once it gets here. So if anyone wants a minty used Tamron 17-35, let me know!

Thanks a lot, can't wait to hear what you think about it, hope you receive it soon.

Julie

 

[mematsu]

I've owned the Tamron on a few different occasions. Great lens for the money for sure.

The 16-35 is better across the board. Better corner sharpness, flare control, and vignetting. I will admit to very noticeable results.

VR is nice to have in a pinch but I think I'd still tripod mount it for consistent results.

If you use the focal range often, it will be a very nice upgrade.

 

[BourbonCowboy]

I've never owned the 16-35, but I do own the Tamron. I've found that if you use a standard CP filter and shoot the lens wide open, you'll get vignetting. Using a slim filter cuts down on this considerably. Otherwise, the Tamron is a steal.

If I were planning to upgrade, I'd probably go for the Nikon 17-35. It's a proven winner with (reportedly) much less distortion - which is what a landscape shooter needs.

 

[Mad Hatter]

I've never owned the 16-35, but I do own the Tamron. I've found that if you use a standard CP filter and shoot the lens wide open, you'll get vignetting. Using a slim filter cuts down on this considerably. Otherwise, the Tamron is a steal.

If I were planning to upgrade, I'd probably go for the Nikon 17-35. It's a proven winner with (reportedly) much less distortion - which is what a landscape shooter needs.

Really? In most situations you'll never see barrel distortion in landscapes. Plus the distortion is easily correctable.

 

[DaMavs]

I made the upgrade to the 16-35 VR from the Tamron in November and have been pleased. The VR is significant to get some truly slow shutter speeds hand held. Much less vignetting and better corners are the biggest differences. I also like that the Nikon is a non-extending barrel.

Overall I'm pleased with the upgrade. The only downside to the 16-35 is it's a noticeably longer lens than the Tamron, but I haven't been tempted to break out the Tamron since getting the Nikon which probably means I should drop by the For Sale forum at some point...

 

[davidnholtjr]

I have both and the Nikon blows away the Tammy in the coroners and over all sharpness. The VR is worth having for lower light.

Hello,

I have a Tamron 17-35 F2.8-F4 that I use on my Nikon D700, I was wondering if anyone who has used this lens has upgraded to the Nikon 16-35 F4 VR and could comment on if it was a noticeable upgrade?

I use the tamron mostly for landscapes so tend to stop down a bit, but sometimes shoot building interiors and was wondering if the VR on the Nikon would help in lower light, enabling my to use lower shutter speeds.

I'm also interested in the image quality differences between the two,

Thanks for reading

Julie

 

[sinar]

Thanks for all the replies, can anyone tell me which of the two lenses can focus the closest?, or are they about the same

Julie

 

[davidnholtjr]

Thanks for all the replies, can anyone tell me which of the two lenses can focus the closest?, or are they about the same

Julie

The Nikon focus a little closer then the Tamron.

 

[sinar]

Thanks, I'm pretty sure this is the lens I"m going to get next, I've just got to save up a bit more.

 

[ourabmen]

I have the tammy, and like. But have been lurking around reading about the 16-35. Might have to pick one up, seems like a great range on he D300.

 

[ddietiker]

If I were planning to upgrade, I'd probably go for the Nikon 17-35. It's a proven winner with (reportedly) much less distortion - which is what a landscape shooter needs.

The 17-35 Nikkor has a hair less distortion when both are at 17mm, it is still pretty significant on the 17-35. I've owned and compared both. For most landscape shots it is a non issue. For architecture it is a whole different ball game and both Nikkors would need correction in PP.

After having the 17-35 for a few years and having shot both lenses, the 16-35 is proven winner too :wink:

 

[photolizard]

I was lusting for the 16-35 when I moved to the D700, but not in a position to pop for one yet. I picked up a BGN Tamron 17-35 from KEH (looks like new) and have been impressed. The corners do indeed get mushy wide open. The kinds of things I shoot with it don't make this obvious, though. What surprises me is that I can stop this sucker down to f/16 and f/22 and I have not seen the sharpness fall like I do with some other lenses.

 

[Kulcha]

Hello,

I have a Tamron 17-35 F2.8-F4 that I use on my Nikon D700, I was wondering if anyone who has used this lens has upgraded to the Nikon 16-35 F4 VR and could comment on if it was a noticeable upgrade?

I used Tamron 17-35 more then 2 years, and now I have 16-35/4 (camera D3)

my answer for this quistion was: I sold Tamron

Tamron is not bad at all, but Nikkor just better(IQ)

Build quality + VR this is advantage of nikkor

 

[juelsbo]

Coming from a D300 with Tokina 12-24mm & Tokina 11-16mm in the wide end about a year ago, I was looking for somewhat similar for my D700 and settled with a Tamron 17-35mm as the reviews were good about this lens.
I have not been disapointed (except from the vignetting at 17mm). It is very good especially taken its price into consideration.
As a long term investment, I still wavers between the Nikon 16-35mm f/4 or the new Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 though.
I do think however, that I will end up with the Nikon because of the VR and the longer reach, which best fits my other lenses (Nikon 24-120mm and Tokina 28-80mm).

 

[Summit_PG]

to the OP. I have my 16-35 VR now and I am definitely not looking back. Its a really solid lens. To me, it is a worthwhile upgrade from the Tammy.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Summit_PG]

here are a couple more for good measure. A couple points that really make this lens useful for me. First, the VR is absolutely as great of an addition as everyone says. Second, the lens has a contrast quality and bite very similar to the 70-200mm.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)