How would you rate the following lenses in terms of sharpness and contrast? Looking for a very large step up from a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (non VC). Very unhappy with this lens at the moment. Thanks.
Why are you unhappy with your Tamron? Can you post an example of an image you feel where it's let you down? It's normally considered a very sharp lens.
Jammy Straub wrote:
Why are you unhappy with your Tamron? Can you post an example of an image you feel where it's let you down? It's normally considered a very sharp lens.
Yes, I've read that many times. However, the sharpness of my copy has never blown me away. It is very much a mediocre lens in this regards.
Your images look fine to me I doubt another lense will " blow you away", what camera are you using, BTW? Difference between images by superlative and ordinary lense are in the eye of beholder mainly, for objective differences you could check Photozone.
A gentelman here on FM bought a half dozen Zeiss lenses and discovering it did not improve his images by much, quickly unloaded them at huge loss. I picked two of those out of great curiosity ( 28 F2 and 85 F1.4 ) only to find my 16-85 Vr matched them in sharpness at least.
If possible try to borrow or rent the lenses you fancy.
tjny wrote:
Your images look fine to me I doubt another lense will " blow you away", what camera are you using, BTW? Difference between images by superlative and ordinary lense are in the eye of beholder mainly, for objective differences you could check Photozone.
A gentelman here on FM bought a half dozen Zeiss lenses and discovering it did not improve his images by much, quickly unloaded them at huge loss. I picked two of those out of great curiosity ( 28 F2 and 85 F1.4 ) only to find my 16-85 Vr matched them in sharpness at least.
If possible try to borrow or rent the lenses you fancy.
Sadly, renting or borrowing is not an option for me. And returning any lens I buy just because I dont like it is 100% out of the question. I have to do ALL my research up front as where I live, China, you cannot return anything once bought.
Your 16-85 shot looks really nice. Do you have a link to a full size image?
tjny wrote:
Your images look fine to me I doubt another lense will " blow you away", what camera are you using, BTW? Difference between images by superlative and ordinary lense are in the eye of beholder mainly, for objective differences you could check Photozone.
A gentelman here on FM bought a half dozen Zeiss lenses and discovering it did not improve his images by much, quickly unloaded them at huge loss. I picked two of those out of great curiosity ( 28 F2 and 85 F1.4 ) only to find my 16-85 Vr matched them in sharpness at least.
If possible try to borrow or rent the lenses you fancy.
Sadly, renting or borrowing is not an option for me. And returning any lens I buy just because I dont like it is 100% out of the question. I have to do ALL my research up front as where I live, China, you cannot return anything once bought.
Your 16-85 shot looks really nice. Do you have a link to a full size image?
My 16-85 is very sharp, but I am underwhelmed by the contrast/rendering/etc. The images just look a bit flat, boring to me (very similar to the Tammy 17-50 that I owned briefly, before returning it - underwhelmed).
Sharpness for me has become very secondary, as most decent lenses will be sharp *enough*. What makes the difference to my eye is richness of colours, contrast, rendering. This is where the Zeiss' will excel.
My 28/2.8 Ais is a major improvement over either of the zooms. Obviously it's a much more limited purpose lens, but it takes gorgeous images. Currently it's my favourite Ais. (I have the 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 16/3.5, 105/2.5, 200/4). Rich, saturated, smooth, pleasing images.
The 16-85 as mentioned is very sharp, but I never warmed up to it. I'll be selling it towards a 24-120/f4, which has it's own flaws from what I read, but renders an image much closer to Canon's L's or some of the better Ais or Zeiss lenses.
bmwrider75 wrote:
My 16-85 is very sharp, but I am underwhelmed by the contrast/rendering/etc. The images just look a bit flat, boring to me (very similar to the Tammy 17-50 that I owned briefly, before returning it - underwhelmed).
Sharpness for me has become very secondary, as most decent lenses will be sharp *enough*. What makes the difference to my eye is richness of colours, contrast, rendering. This is where the Zeiss' will excel.
My 28/2.8 Ais is a major improvement over either of the zooms. Obviously it's a much more limited purpose lens, but it takes gorgeous images. Currently it's my favourite Ais. (I have the 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 16/3.5, 105/2.5, 200/4). Rich, saturated, smooth, pleasing images.
The 16-85 as mentioned is very sharp, but I never warmed up to it. I'll be selling it towards a 24-120/f4, which has it's own flaws from what I read, but renders an image much closer to Canon's L's or some of the better Ais or Zeiss lenses.
Thanks for your reply. I am shooting a Fujifilm S5 which has amazing color. So unless the lens actively kills color, or contrast, I should be OK. The Tamron doesnt do that, it just doesnt give powerful sharpness. That is why I am on the search for something new. The 16-85 is tempting. I'd love to try it out first if that were possible. Or the 17-35. Is the 16 f/3.5 a fish? Wider is what I want but not interested in a fish. Sort of have my eye on a 20mm f/2.8 AIS. That might be what I am looking for.
You are in a tough situation! I can see the edge and corner softness of the Tamron in your images, and that matches what I found with my non-VC copy (sold now). An underwhelming lens, but good in its way if you need f/2.8.
Your choices are posted are not necessarily ones I would choose. Zeiss lenses are always a good bet, occasionally suffering edge softness on their full frame coverage, they should be excellent on crop. 50/2 MP macro and 100/2 MP macro are two with the best reviews on sharpness. The 35/1.4 also gets great reviews. Any Nikon Micro lens will also get you excellent sharpness, even the older AIS manual focus models. Zooms are more problematic.
Of the zooms listed, the Nikon 17-35/2.8 (I assume you meant this, and not the Nikon 16-35/4) has a very good reputation. It is a full frame lens, but will provide excellent results on crop. Nikon's 17-55/2.8 also has a great reputation. Of course the 24-70 and 14-24/2.8 are legendary, but expensive. Zooms will be trickier than primes for best sharpness.
As with anything, the most expensive tend to be the best, but only you can deside if the cost reflects the value to you.
The S5 is a lovely camera, but it is not really a top choice today for sharpness, featuring the technology from the D200 era. I owned one and agree that the color rendition and dynamic range are terrific, but you might consider a newer model like a D7000 (or perhaps its future replacement) to give you significantly sharper results. Full frame cameras also push you into a higher level of sharpness, but at a considerably higher cost with Nikon gear.
I have the 17-35mm F2.8. It is a very sharp and worth every penny. Using it on a Full Frame brings out it's full potential. If you are using crop sensor body - the 17-55mm F2.8 is also very sharp.
hdavid wrote:
I have the 17-35mm F2.8. It is a very sharp and worth every penny. Using it on a Full Frame brings out it's full potential. If you are using crop sensor body - the 17-55mm F2.8 is also very sharp.
Actually, I am more interested in the 16-35mm f/4 VR. I keep getting these lenses all confused!
I'm viewing on an iPad at the moment, so can't see the EXIF data for the two images posted. The first looks to be suffering from a bit of hand-held motion blur. In the second, the foreground subject looks pretty sharp (the trike behind the two boys), but the rest is a little soft. DoF is the likely issue here.....
I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non VC and find it very acceptably sharp. I have owned and used the Nikon 14-24, 17-35, and 24-70 and 50 f/1.4 so have a good frame of reference.
I'd say everywhere but the corners your Tamron is doing about as good as you can expect with your S5, it simply isn't a high resolution camera and it's lack of resolution is what you are seeing versus a lens issue.
The S5 is actually capturing about 6mp worth of resolution data (Despite whatever Fuji marketing might say about it being 12mp). If 'sharpness' is what you're after, I'd look at getting a higher resolution body such as a D7000 or finding a used D300s (same basic frame as your S5). The D300 would offer a pretty good upgrade in terms of resolution and a major upgrade in terms of AF and body performance. The D7000 adds way more resolution and a will still be and upgrade in terms of AF. The D7000 has excellent dynamic range, check out the DXO ratings for the S5 vs D7000
Jammy Straub wrote:
Thank you for the examples! That helps a lot!
You're not going to like this answer
I'd say everywhere but the corners your Tamron is doing about as good as you can expect with your S5, it simply isn't a high resolution camera and it's lack of resolution is what you are seeing versus a lens issue.
The S5 is actually capturing about 6mp worth of resolution data (Despite whatever Fuji marketing might say about it being 12mp). If 'sharpness' is what you're after, I'd look at getting a higher resolution body such as a D7000 or finding a used D300s (same basic frame as your S5). The D300 would offer a pretty good upgrade in terms of resolution and a major upgrade in terms of AF and body performance. The D7000 adds way more resolution and a will still be and upgrade in terms of AF. The D7000 has excellent dynamic range, check out the DXO ratings for the S5 vs D7000
Thanks for your reply. I had not truly considered the S5 as part of this equation but now must do so. If it is in fact my S5 that is limiting my sharpness, then the search for another lens can stop right now. I am not going to move onto another body as the S5's color and dynamic range are exactly what inspires me with photography at the moment. I have a Canon SLR system with a full set of lenses, many L's, that just sit because they don't motivate me anymore. The S5 does. I had assumed that what I was seeing in my images was the Tamron's poorer performance. Perhaps I am mistaken. I will live with the lesser sharpness if that is the case.
Many, many thanks to ALL who have responded to me in this thread!
Now I can focus on the Nikkor 16-35mm f/4 lens just to get the 4 stops of VR! That will keep ISO values lower.
+1 Jammy:
I am one of the earliest users of 70-300 VR and as such have used this lense first on a D200 then D300 and now D7k and each time have noticed substantial impeovement in IQ.
Swithching cameras cost me dearly but improvement in IQ was of far greater magnitude than between Zeiss and Nikor 16-85 vr or Nikon's own fabled 60 mm afs.
rattymouse wrote:
Thanks for your reply. I had not truly considered the S5 as part of this equation but now must do so. If it is in fact my S5 that is limiting my sharpness, then the search for another lens can stop right now. I am not going to move onto another body as the S5's color and dynamic range are exactly what inspires me with photography at the moment.
No problem at all. You might fall in love with this guy then The colors look gorgeous. This looks to be the way Fuji is moving.
