List Price: $763.95
Sale Price: $488.19
Today's Bonus: 36% Off
I have had this lens for a month now and have shot a few thousand photos with it in different lighting situations. I own a few other fast lenses and use them all in my work as a wedding photographer. This was the first purchase I have made outside of the Nikon brand name. I am always a big review reader, before I buy kinda guy. Not just with Photography.
First off, let me say this. The lens is very good. I would go so far as to say it is excellent, with all things considered about this lens.
Now I will tell you how to buy it. Go to the shop you favor and use it. I did this and did not buy it on Amazon. I brought one of my cameras (D200) and I used the lens inside and outside of the shop. Then for comparison, I used the Genuine Nikon lens to A-B them together. Tamron has been rumored to have some QC issues, so using the lens copy you are going to actually buy is the best bet, I think. Note: I made samples from each lens at 2.8, f4, f8 and f11. I did them at full wide and full zoom and about the middle range of both lenses I think it was 35mm. I used no flash for these tests.
Here is what I determined from the above exercise. The Nikon lens is definitely much better built. It is much larger and has significantly more weight. It reminds me of a Jr version of my Nikon 80-200mm 2.8D AF lens. A lens I love btw. However, that is not to say that the Tamron was in any way built cheap. In fact it is well built. I use my lenses a lot, but I am very careful with them too. Tamron offers a 6 year warranty VS Nikon's 5 year. The build of the Tamron lens was better than the kit lens sold with most Nikon models, but no where near that of the Nikon lens I am comparing it to. With proper care, the Tamron lens will hold up, no doubt.
Focus was also, noticibly faster on the Nikon lens. However, not dramaticly so. It is more quiet, again, not dramaticly so. Some people have complained about the Tamron being noisy. All I can say is the one I tested was not. It was About as noisy or a little less than my Nikon 18-55 Kit lens was, before I sold it.
Image quality: Honestly, I could not tell the difference here and this is what really sold me on the Tamron lens. The folks at my camera store took the A-B images I took and uploaded them to one of their in store computers for me to really compare them on the spot. Now that is customer service!! I was really hard pressed to see any difference at all in the images and I knew which lens they came from. Both lenses produced images which were very sharp and contrasty in all areas at all focal lengths and stops. I would bet if I mixed them up and said..OK, Pick the Nikon and the Tamron's out of the pile, I do not think anyone would get them right. The only noticible difference was an image taken outdoors at f/11. The Nikon one did seem to be just a tad sharper in the background. I should have taken more images at that range, but on the LCD they both looked good at the time and I was starting to run late, so I didn't. My point was, I do not know if it was lens error or my error on these two particular shots. But like I said, it was minimal differences anyway.
Conclusion: Ok, so the Nikon is a better lens on a number of points. This of course given my highly un-scientific testing results. However, when you consider the cost, it better be superior at something. I opted to buy the Tamron 17-50 because, I could not tell the difference enough to make me justify the cost of the Nikon lens.
I am very happy with this lens and I have no doubts it will last many years. So, do yourself a favor if you are in the market for this lens, use the one you intend to buy first. Make sure you did not get one of the bad copies and I am confident you too will love this lens.
0 comments:
Post a Comment