Beats anything Nikon offers in this range
photo http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests
Ultra-wide lenses occupy the other end of the spectrum from tele-zooms, and they’re a challenge both for the designer and the user. Both need to apply special techniques to make the best of these lenses because of the compromises inherent in wide-angle photography. These lenses also tend to cost more than standard zooms - Nikon's entry-level 18-35 sells for close to $700.
The Tamron is no longer sold new but good used copies can be bought for a lot less. Mike Johnston who now runs the popular site TOP (The Online Photographer http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html)wrote a brief review about this lens for Luminous Landscape in 2004 headed: A Killer Digital Lens http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-nov-04.shtml.
Mike sums the Tamron up this way: ‘Over the years I've developed certain tastes; and at this point I can just tell when a lens has got it. So what's "it"? Just an essential rightness in its look, a visual coherence, a vividness. Call it sharpness, call it contrast, call it "3D," it's all gaslight – you can pick apart the technical specifications and MTF charts apart nine ways from Sunday. But the fact remains that some lenses just have it and some lenses just don't. The Tamron 17-35mm Di has it.’
Maybe he means this kind of look, which struck me much the same way.
To see a bigger image, just click on the photos here.
The basics
This is one of Tamron’s SP range, which the lens maker says stands for Super Performance. I prefer to think of these as Semi-Professional, a tag the f/2.8-4 focal range hints at, and a description the build quality supports. There’s more alphabet soup to swallow before we get through this bit, coz the full name of this lens is Tamron SP AF 17-35 f/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical (IF).
Di means digitally integrated and LD stands for Low Dispersion (glass) which helps minimize chromatic aberration, and you know what AF and IF stand for. The aspherical elements, of which this lens has three, are deployed to control spherical aberrations which tend to raise their ugly heads in fast wide-angle lenses.
Tamron discontinued this lens a couple of years ago when it introduced the new 10-24mm DX lens, at a similar US $500 price. The advantage of this old 17-35 is that it will work just as well on FX bodies like the D700 and D3 (and film cameras) as on DX bodies. In addition to more flexibility, it also offers better build quality than the new 10-24.
Construction
This is not a heavy lens, and that’s a real bonus. At 440g, the weight’s about right and the size is compact as well. It’s a tad bigger than Nikon’s 18-35mm, its natural rival, but it feels a whole lot more solid. The lens hood is a bit extreme in diameter.
Lens Construction 14 elements in 11 groups
Angle of View 104 - 63 degrees (full frame 35mm)
Sensor size Full Frame design, will work on DX bodies
Autofocus will not AF on Nikon D40/60/3000/5000 - no built in motor
Diaphragm 7 blades
Minimum Focus 0.3m (entire zoom range)
Macro Mag. Ratio 1:5.4 (at 35mm)
Filter Diameter 77mm
Weight 440g
Diameter x Length 83.2mm x 86.5mm
Unlike Nikon G’s lenses, the Tamron still provides an aperture ring.
Handling
Making quality optics isn’t all that hard, but making quality optics in a compact size is. The size and weight of the Tamron are just right and make it easy to carry with you. They also help it balance well on a D90 or D7000 body, while it won’t be lost on a D700. That is its ideal home since this is an FX lens but using it on a cropped sensor body cuts out the vignetting some reviewers found in some full frame images.
The barrel of the lens extends less than 1 cm when extended so you hardly notice it. The zoom ring moves with the right degree of authority but the focus ring could do with more resistance. Still, it’s not as loose as the one on Nikon’s 18-35. What the two lenses have in common is the huge 77 inch lens diameter. Most ultra-wide lenses are wide at the front end for obvious reasons. This makes them hard to squeeze into small pockets, and it makes filters pretty expensive.
In the Tamron’s case, you also get a hood that has lost any sense of proportion. Flaring is no worse than with normal lenses, so the hood is not an absolute necessity if you’re pressed for space. I have a minor handling issue with the rear lens caps on Tamrons, since they only fit in one particular groove which is annoying when you’re in a rush.
Performance
Autofocus on my old F80 is fast and accurate, even in poor light. And the Tamron is better than average in poor light, given focal minima of f/2.8 and 4 across the zoom range. The Nikon is a bit slower at f/3.5-5.6, and that makes the Tamron a touch more useful in bad light.
Manual focusing is easy enough too, as there are no switches to worry about. The focus ring has plenty of fine adjustment too. On a DX body, this Tamron provides a field of view equivalent to 26-52mm (on a 35mm format camera). That’s no longer ultra-wide, but covers from wide to normal which is a useful range for anything from action with animals and children to street photography. The images shown here were all shot on a D5000 using manual focus as this camera lacks the in-built AF motor, that's why I have no action shots.
Image Quality
One of the best things about this lens, despite the nits some of the reviewers pic with it, is that its image quality is very consistent from the wide to the long end. And you can actually use this lens at f/2.8 without the image quality taking a beating. Sure there’s some distortion if you peep deeply into the pixels, but this is not a professional lens for photographing architecture. Mike is right: there something about the files that come out of the camera with this lens on. Somehow, the textures look more real or smooth or fluid. It’s hard to define but it works well for landscapes.
Real World
You can pick all kinds of nits in elaborate test results, but Tamron produced a winner with this lens which it no longer manufactures. The good news is that it can be bought used for less than $300 and for another $100 or so new from a few remaining sources. It does everything Nikon’s 18-35 does, only better and faster, and the build quality is in a different class. The Nikon really is a a bit of a letdown at the price Nikon stuck on it, and its eBay price reflects that.
To my mind, Tamron’s SP lenses often hit the perfect balance between build quality, weight and cost, and this lens is no exception. I suspect the only reason Tamron stopped making this model is that it’s more focused on making lenses for cropped sensor cameras these days. The 10-24 is the obvious consequence but, when you buy that D700 you’ve always hankered after, you can only use that lens in DX mode. The 17-35 is much more adaptable.
Reviews
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_17_35_review.html
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Tamron-1735mm-f284-SP-AF-Di-4585
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=245&sort=1&cat=43
Hello :)
What is your opinion of the Nikon COOLPIX S8100?
My camera recently broke, and I just want to know if anybody thinks this would be a great one. In case you have a better digital camera thought in mind let me know, many thanks.
Posted by: Nikon Coolpix S Review | 02/03/2011 at 05:55 AM
Looks like a fair bet, mate, but the reviews are mixed. Here's a reliable one
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_coolpix_s8100_review/conclusion/
I'd take a look at the Canon S210 or Panny Lumix TZ10/TS7 as well.
Kim
Posted by: Kim | 02/03/2011 at 06:39 AM
check this link, ugg boots china wholesale ugg boots from china to take huge discount ugg boots china suprisely
Posted by: crymnrickie | 12/27/2011 at 07:35 PM