Is it possible to have "too nice" a lens?

Not all the Tamron glass is bad... I mean the 70-200 is excellent, along with the 90mm, and 17-50mm are all known for being excellent lenses!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dr4gon

Not all the Tamron glass is bad... I mean the 70-200 is excellent, along with the 90mm, and 17-50mm are all known for being excellent lenses!

---

I think that should be qualified somewhat. IMO, the 70-200 is excellent optically, but its AF motor on Nikon mount is extremely slow (at least the one I tested, although a disproportionately high number of users report the same experience if you check user feedback online).

The new 17-50 for Nikon mount (the one that now includes a built-in AF motor) has a similar caveat: the lens now focuses noticeably slower than before. It's not nearly as bad as the 70-200 (probably because it has fewer and lighter glass elements inside), but it slips into the below average category now. Also, it looks like it may have QC problems wrt to focus calibration out of the box. Not as bad as Sigma, but there are reports of front / back focusing on both Nikon and Canon bodies.

My friend recently got a Tammy 17-50 for his Nikon, and I tested it for him. Bad front-focus on his first copy. I told him to send it back. Even the AF Fine Tune on his D300 did not offer enough compensation for front-focus when set to +20 out of +20. The second copy he received was better, but he still had to dial in about +17 to compensate for front-focus. Of course, i tried both lenses on my own D300 and tried other lenses on his D300 to confirm that it was indeed the Tamrons that were front-focusing and not the bodies.

Actually want to try out the 90 macro myself, as it looks like a great deal. But am concerned about potential focus accuracy problems and QC. Although, the lens does have a great reputation, so I would assume focus and QC problems would show up in user feedback online like with the other Tamrons and most Sigmas if there were widespread problems.

It shouldn't be up to the end user to have to do QC work for a manufacturer.
I'd rather pay a few pounds more than suffer the frustration of the loss of use and maybe carriage costs while it or a replacement arrives.
Maybe it's best to give Tamron a wide berth.

The fact is, most of my TAMRONs are dead on, out of the box. Only the 28-300 and 28-75 had issues, but I had anticipated them. The 17-50 (which I have had two - one SONY and the other Canon) were dead nuts! I am very happy with their results. :D

Reflecting on the TAMRONs:

• SP AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD MACRO
• SP AF 180mm f/3.5 Di LD 1:1 MACRO
• SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di 1:1 MACRO
• AF 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF)
• SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD

these lens have provided most excellent results and rarely need much of a touch up. Hell, I'd shoot against any competitors.

I can honestly say that once corrected, the SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO shoots as well as the 17-50, just choose your focal length, I guess.



I have shot the 17-50 against the SONY CZ 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 and, in my opinion, the results say buy the TAMRON for pure affordability. The difference in focal accuity is NOT worth the price, if you are "cash-strapped." You will be more than happy with what you will get from the TAMRON.

In fact, in a couple more days, I am going to do an "accuity test" on the KM 17-35mm f/2.8-4 "D" against the TAMRON SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF). At three (3) and seven (7) feet. The 17-35 looks pretty good, so far (I bought it last summer, after it had been reconditioned) and I just want to get this one done for the year. Should be an excellent side-by-side comparision, with one designed for use on Full Frame and the other on APS-C sensors.

If people can pony up the cost of SONY glass, in the beginning, I would suggest you do so. But for the "budget shooter" looking for pretty good image quality ... make it TAMRON, then worry about the high-end SONY glass, as you get nuts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peekayoh

It shouldn't be up to the end user to have to do QC work for a manufacturer.
I'd rather pay a few pounds more than suffer the frustration of the loss of use and maybe carriage costs while it or a replacement arrives.
Maybe it's best to give Tamron a wide berth.

---

While I would agree, we should also keep in mind that this lower level of QC is what allows Tamron and Sigma to produce great lenses at sometimes half the price of the equivalent OE lenses from the big name manufacturers.

This gives the user a choice: they can pay more and have more peace of mind getting the OE lenses; or, they can save money and get 3rd party mfr lenses, knowing that they might have to return it or get it calibrated first.

Earlier, I bought a lot of third party lenses because building my lens selection was the main priority. I was willing to take the chance of having to send back the odd lens. And sure enough, I had to return both the Sigma 30/1.4 and Sigma 24-60/2.8. But I did also get perfect copies of the Sigma 10-20 and Sigma 50/2.8 macro, which have performed very well for me from day 1 and represent excellent value. These days, I try to buy OE lenses wherever possible, but I'm at a different time and place now than I was back then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DonSchap

In fact, in a couple more days, I am going to do an "accuity test" [....] at three (3) and seven (7) feet.

---

Might I suggest something longer distance for the second test? I find that there still is a difference in performance between 7 feet (which should be the sweet spot for any lens in that focal length range) and infinity focus.

I don't really understand the Nikon lens system. Why do they all need a motor? What's wrong with the screw drive system? It seems like they ended up making things worse (slower) and probably more expensive.

Every manufacturer has its quirks ... when Nikon opted not to put a drive motor in the cheap D40 (the give-away DSLR) ... it started a real nasty trend with no apparent end. :rolleyes: :( People INSISTED on lenses that would work on their cheap DSLR ... and they got their wish ... now, here they are, back again ... complaining, complaining ... and b*tchin', too! When it comes to sympathy for the pathetic ... I come up woefully short.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dr4gon

I don't really understand the Nikon lens system. Why do they all need a motor? What's wrong with the screw drive system? It seems like they ended up making things worse (slower) and probably more expensive.

---

You could ask the same thing of Canon and Olympus (no screw drive on any body; all focusing done in the lens), and what about Sony & Minolta's attempt at that with SSM?

But for Nikon specifically, what happened was that the entry level D40-D60 bodies did not include an AF screw-drive motor to save cost and weight. They became so popular that lens mfr's started adding AF motors to most of their Nikon-mount lenses. If they didn't they'd be losing out a significant Nikon user base. But it's not like they had to do too much, since their Canon and Olympus -mount lenses all have built-in AF motors anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by e_dawg

Might I suggest something longer distance for the second test? I find that there still is a difference in performance between 7 feet (which should be the sweet spot for any lens in that focal length range) and infinity focus.

---

Inifinity focus on that target is a bit much to ask for. The entire thing becomes not much more than a spot at 17mm and 27+ feet away. :eek: