Tamron 17-50 and my D200

[phatkid77]

anyone else use this combo.... im looking to use this for weddings and portrait work, but im not sure if i have a decent copy or not.... or if im expecting too much...
please look at the pics posted in this link and let me know what you guys think....

if i can get him to order another copy in i will so i can test them side by side.... i REALLY dont want to drop $1700 on the nikkor

i struggled for 2 months about whether or not to get the 17-50 or the 24-75, but figured i could crop the 50 if need be, but if i need to back up but cant im pooched....

anyway...

opinions please

thanks

http://dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23425

[cyclohexane]

The 17-55mm Nikkor is only about $1100-1250, depending on where you shop. Who's selling it for $1700?

In your tests, the first ones with different metering modes don't look like they have anything to do with the metering modes. The unsharp image looks like it's suffering from camera shake. You should eliminate camera shake as a suspect by using a tripod, which I think you mentioned that you lacked.

Do you have a filter screwed-on the front? I've found that cheaper UV/Skylight filters tend to steal not only contrast, but sharpness as well. Heck, even some of the medium-range filters take a bit of softness. On the occasion that I actually have a filter screwed-on to my lens, it'll be B+W or something of equivalent quality.

What about focusing errors? I hear that the Tamron lenses tend to ship somewhat "loose" in their ability to acquire focus lock as well, so you should take advantage of the 6-year warranty and get the thing calibrated by Tamron USA. If it's still soft, then your lens is a lemon.

Are you sharpening your images? Are you using in-camera sharpening? The D200 has a fairly generous anti-aliasing filter. Personally, those 100% crops look pretty decent to me if they're unsharpened or using "Auto" for in-camera sharpening. I have the 17-35mm f/2.8D AF-S Nikkor (a well-used, destroyed looking copy) that appears soft at first glance, but the detail's all there, and it sharpens up really cleanly in postprocessing.

[phatkid77]

thanks for looking... i am in canada hence the $1700 bones... yeah im not disgusted with the images... just wondered if it could be better... and i cant imagine camera shake doin it....not doin 1\60th or anything

i have it on +2 in camera sharpening... and these were just resized for the web.....

phats

[f6palley]

I've just finished shooting that lens and camera combo for an article and interview in the September '06 Tamron Viewfinder magazine. It is the FIRST and ONLY non-Nikor lens I have ever used in 35 years of photography. I was incredibly impressed and had to eat a lot of crow for things I have said about after market lenses over the year. If I hadn't been such a boorish lens snob over the years, I would have learned that Tamron and other after market lens makers are delivering great product at a reasonable price. After the initial week with the lens, I had the opportunity to shoot a Nikor 17-55 DX lens. Great lens...horribly over-priced. The Tamron may not have the build quality of the Nikor, but I will put up any image I shot with it against the Nikor any day. If the lens wears out in a couple of years, then I'll buy another one. I LOVE the lens. By the way, although I shot this lens for a Tamron articleI am not just a Tamron shill...The agreement was I would tell them how I thought the lens performed in commercial and architectural work, good or bad...period. I have to return the lens. If I want one I have to lay down my money, and believe me...I WILL!!

Geoff

[phatkid77]

and you think my pictures look like??

phats

[cyclohexane]

In-camera sharpening, in general, sucks. I don't use it. Instead, I sharpen in postprocessing. Works much better, IMHO.