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.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.
Agreed.FotoWerkz That's a great photo^^
Yes, I'll bet they make a great team--can you give us a sample or 2?Southswede I like my 17-50 2.8 VC on my D300........
Kalison, these are nice--the colors give a dreamy, surreal effect.Kalison Tammy 17-35/2.8-4 on D7000
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.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.
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.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)
What difference does it make? And why would anyone care unless they're more concerned with appearances than actual results.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
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!The 17-50 is an amazing lens and its more than acceptably sharp wide open.
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.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.