The TAMMY CLUB

Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
7,498
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Tammy 90

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
4,919
Location
New England
jr1966;3574245]I'm not sure how it happens but it happens. It's a known issue and widely discussed.

Here's some shots with the 18-270/D90 combo.
JR, I see why you are willing to put up with that problem: the lens is nice & sharp. That truck-digging-dirt shot rocks! Thanks for the examples.

FotoWerkz That's a great photo^^
Agreed.

Southswede I like my 17-50 2.8 VC on my D300........
Yes, I'll bet they make a great team--can you give us a sample or 2?

Kalison Tammy 17-35/2.8-4 on D7000
Kalison, these are nice--the colors give a dreamy, surreal effect. :)
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
3,529
Location
Thornhill, Ontario, a suburb of Toronto
My only Tamron lens is an SP 35~105 2.8 manual focus zoom that I bought about ten years ago.
I've always been happy with the results it gives me and it has become the one lens I grab when I'm taking only one camera and lens to walk around with.

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)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Nov 21, 2010
Messages
343
Location
Eastern NC
I have the Tammy SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DI VC USD. I like it a lot. I had to send it in for repairs (under warranty). The AF motor quit working, and it had a communication problem with the contacts. I'm waiting now to get it back. It stays on my camera more than my other lens, so I'm really missing it. Will have some catching up to do, when I finally get it.
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2011
Messages
124
Location
Guam
JR, I see why you are willing to put up with that problem: the lens is nice & sharp. That truck-digging-dirt shot rocks! Thanks for the examples.
Yes, that is the reason why I still have it in my bag, despite being tempted by the newer version. I believe I got an optically excellent copy and that is what matters the most when getting a 3rd party lens, at least to me. There will always be a chance that if replaced, the new one won't be such a good copy optically.
 
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
2,483
Location
Missouri
Alright...I'll add some that everybody's probably seen, but it will be useful for people on the fence about Tamron.

17-50 f2.8 (with BIM/no VC)
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)


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)
 
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
2,483
Location
Missouri
Something I've never, ever seen anybody else do...maybe some other's will try it..

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 + Kenko Pro300 1.4TC + SB-400
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


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


fairly heavy crop...but quality held up very well
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
9,081
Location
Oregon
My T90 will never leave my bag. I love the manual/auto focus lever and the ability of course to limit the focus. It's just a killer lens on either my D7000 or my D200.
 
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
5,842
Location
phoenix
Seeing the examples here is proof people have options. Just because it's not Nikon doesn't mean it can't be good and in some cases better.

NateS outstanding examples of a "Pro" 3rd party lens. Can I use that worn out word with something not Nikon? If it looks "Pro" and smells "Pro" it must be "Pro" or does "Pro" have to exceed a certain price to be considered "Pro" or can it just stand on it's optics to be "Pro".

What exactly constitutes a "Pro" lens anyway? Because the manufacturer calls it that?

So are you "Pro" or Con to my statement? :biggrin: :biggrin:


I'm tired now that wore me out! haha
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2011
Messages
124
Location
Guam
Here's some 17-50f2.8/D90 combo.

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

DSC_0246 by orgazmo, on Flickr
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

DSC_0251 by orgazmo, on Flickr
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

DSC_0232 by orgazmo, on Flickr
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

DSC_0130 by orgazmo, on Flickr
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

DSC_0155 by orgazmo, on Flickr
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

DSC_0191 by orgazmo, on Flickr
 
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
4,919
Location
New England
Alright...I'll add some that everybody's probably seen, but it will be useful for people on the fence about Tamron.

17-50 f2.8 (with BIM/no VC)
Excellent--I like the piano most--& you've made its already excellent close focus abilities even better. BTW, I have not seen any of these images.

I knew, and kind of expected the 17-50 to be an excellent performer. However, the SP 24-135 is a big surprise for me. It too does excellent close focus. My first post with it was at the wide end, this one is @ 100mm and wide open. The lens is amazingly good @ tele, wide open--I think.

Also, for those who do not know this, over @ the Miranda site this is the highest rated Tamron zoom--out does the 17-50 according to owner reviews there. For example, http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=241&sort=7&cat=43&page=1

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
3,529
Location
Thornhill, Ontario, a suburb of Toronto
Seeing the examples here is proof people have options. Just because it's not Nikon doesn't mean it can't be good and in some cases better.

NateS outstanding examples of a "Pro" 3rd party lens. Can I use that worn out word with something not Nikon? If it looks "Pro" and smells "Pro" it must be "Pro" or does "Pro" have to exceed a certain price to be considered "Pro" or can it just stand on it's optics to be "Pro".

What exactly constitutes a "Pro" lens anyway? Because the manufacturer calls it that?So are you "Pro" or Con to my statement? :biggrin: :biggrin:


I'm tired now that wore me out! haha
What difference does it make? And why would anyone care unless they're more concerned with appearances than actual results.
In the end, it's the performance that counts.
And if you are getting quality images that satisfy you and/or the people you shoot for, with a lens that stands up reliably to the usage that you give it, it is immaterial whether anyone considers it it to be a "Pro" lens or not.
 
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
4,919
Location
New England
The 17-50 is an amazing lens and its more than acceptably sharp wide open.
Excellent point--it is as sharp as the Nikon 17-55 2.8 wide open in the center, but outperforms it out @ the borders for sharpness--amazing!

However, the field curvature needs to be mentioned, even though in real world shooting it did not negatively affect any of my shooting since I did not shoot flat, 2 dimensional scenes.
 
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
5,842
Location
phoenix
What difference does it make? And why would anyone care unless they're more concerned with appearances than actual results.In the end, it's the performance that counts.
And if you are getting quality images that satisfy you and/or the people you shoot for, with a lens that stands up reliably to the usage that you give it, it is immaterial whether anyone considers it it to be a "Pro" lens or not.
Thank you!!! I agree 100%. I get so tired of seeing beautiful IQ photos and comments that it's aftermarket so it's not as good as a Nikon would be or something like that.
I'm glad this thread was started.
 
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
2,483
Location
Missouri
Since this thread is doing so well, I'll add some more landscapes from the 17-50 f2.8 BIM
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)


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)
 
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
2,483
Location
Missouri
17-50 f2.8 is good for people shooting too.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


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



...the funniest part is that I haven't even posted about my favorite and most used Tamron Lens..the 180mm f3.5 macro which has caused me to nail off a good 25,000 shutter releases in the past 15 months all on it's own.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom