Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by nykonian, Jul 1, 2007.
It's been out for a little and I've not seen a lot of comments on this.
My guess is its so new no one has had a chance to try it out yet.
I had one for two days. had to send it back because it was extremely soft at 50/2.8. I but i think it was defective, as it looked very hazy and had massive abberations. It misfocussed at close 50mm shots. when in MF it was better, but i never could achieve a sharp result.
one thing: its noticably wider than the 17-50mm tamron and it has a cool tone to the imgs.
i would love to try another sample, as i think it was transportation damage (it wasn't packaged well when i received it).
the huge MF clutch is nice if you do MF a lot, but otherwise its a bit annoying.
Don't know about the Tokina, but I have the Tamron 17-50 and couldn't be happier. Razor sharp with nice color and contrast.
Get the new Macro version of the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8. Very sharp.
Big, expensive like the Nikon 17-55. I prefer my sharper, smaller, cheaper and lighter Tamron 17-50.
Ummm .. they are about the same size and weight:
2.9 x 3.2" (74 x 82mm)(d x l) , 15.2 oz (430g)
3.1 X 3.4" (79 x 86mm)(d x l) , 15.9 oz (450g)
I think that weiran was referring to the weight of the Tokina, which is significantly heavier than the two you mentioned (21.5 oz)
Yes I'm referring to the original post rather than sabesh's. The Tamron and Sigma are very similar lenses.
Please consider disabling your ad blocker for our website.
We rely on ad revenue to pay for image hosting and to keep the site speedy.
Or subscribe for $5 per year to remove all ads and support our efforts.