Tamron 17-50 2.8 Cap'n Crunch Test :)

[Zachs]

Just got the Tammy in the mail, but I'm stuck at work so I'm ran some caparison shots. They range from f/2.8 -f/11 @ ISO 100 on a D200. In camera settings are: -1 contrast / +1 Sharpening

These are all 100% crops with the Tammy at 50mm vs the Nikon 50 f1.4 lens:

For all of these, Tamron FIRST, Nikon Second




Nikon 50 1.4 @ 1.4

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

Nikon 50 1.4 @ f/2

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

f/2.8

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

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

f/4

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

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

f/8

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

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

f/11

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

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

And for the full frame shots w/ bokeh in frame:
These had smart sharpening done due to the resizing:
nikon f1.4

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

Nikon f2

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

f/2.8

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

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

f/4

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

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

f/8

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

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

f/11

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

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

OK, I can't wait to leave work so I can do some real shots, but that won't be for MANY MANY more hours

hmm...after looking at this, maybe the tammy isn't a true 50mm??? the Nikon 50 seems much longer in the cropped verions. These are all done on a D200 and the tripod never moved. the cropping was an automated Action in photoshop I made... hmm


And a people picture.


100%

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

full frame (smart sharpened for web)

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

 

[Zachs]

First impressions:

SMALL. The damn thing is SMALL!! Much much smaller and lighter than the Nikon version. The Zoom ring is stiff. Either this lens is not a 50, or my 50 is more like a 55-60mm as the tripod NEVER moved. At f/4 this thing is tack sharp. Maybe sharper than the 50, but you be the judge. At f/2 the 50 is ridiculous though IMHO.

 

[Nuteshack]

looks good Zachs

 

[PhilY]

hmm...after looking at this, maybe the tammy isn't a true 50mm??? the Nikon 50 seems much longer in the cropped verions. These are all done on a D200 and the tripod never moved. the cropping was an automated Action in photoshop I made... hmm

The Tammy is NOT a 50 unless you are focusing at infinity. Only then do you get the full focal length claimed.

Phil

 

[Zachs]

Well that def explains alot! Thanks for that bit of knowledge.

here are some more shots from today after I left work:

One of my ex's horses just had a baby, so of course she is going to get exploited as much as possible! She is really cute and clumsy, so it was real fun.

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

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

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

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

 

[Brian-S]

Hmmm... can't say I'm a fan of the tammy. I think the 50/1.4 looks better in practically every close-up shot (except maybe at f11 in the closeups). Full frame, they look a bit more comparable so I dunno...

Brian

 

[Zachs]

I don't have a problem at all with this lens at f/4 and beyond, but at f2.8 it really seems like crap. I'll test it later with a 28 f2.8. I REALLY hope it beats the 28! haha

 

[weiran]

I wouldn't say it looks crap at f/2.8, it's not as good as the Nikkor 50mm but then you're comparing a zoom lens wide open at the longest focal length to a prime Nikkor lens stopped down. If you check the Nikkor at 50mm it exhibits the same softness and a lot of CA, although it's difficult to judge as there isn't any fine detail shown in the crop.

Brian: I know this is a purely subjective test, but IMO the Tamron looks much better than the Nikkor stopped down, it's far more contrasty and doesn't exhibit any of the CA the Nikkor seems to have. Sharpness seems on par as far as I can see from the shots too.

 

[Brian-S]

Weiran: I can definitely appreciate that it's a good lens for the money and offers a nice, flexible alternative to fast primes. I guess what bothers me is it's relatively poor f/2.8 performance. I would've hoped for better. I agree with you that the Tamron is more contrasty and does equally well if not better than the Nikon stopped down. However, why buy a 2.8 lens if you're going to be stopped down to f/8 or f/11? My main reason for buying the lens would be to use it wide-open much of the time, and there the performance in the details is not convincing enough for me to buy it. On the other hand, if you're not so interested in details and more using it for walk-around snapshots that you're not going to blow up, then I think it's a great value and money well spent.

Brian