None of my three copies of the Tamron 17/3.5 (all EX+ to mint) came close to my Zuiko for distortion (close to none on the Zuiko) or corner sharpness (near perfect on the Zuiko) . The micro-contrast of the Zuiko is also much better, with the Tamron being poor in that regard. I also found the colors (especially greens and blues) were washed out on the Tamron 17's, and it was too easy to cause flare and ghosting.
I tested my Tamron 17/3.5's with the original Adaptall-EOS converter, or a Nikon Ai or Oly OM + appropriate adapter, and the hood. No combination of lens copy or adapter fitting gave me results anywhere near the Zuiko 18/3.5. Keep in mind I mainly do landscape photography, and I want excellent sharpness across the frame. There's usually a large amount of detail, and demanding light challenges, in the frame.
The Zuiko 18/3.5, even with the 49-72mm ring, is still very small. The Tamron 17/3.5 with the hood is close to twice the size. The Zuiko can take a 72mm filter, while the Tamron requires a (PITA) 82mm filter in the hood. I got tired of attaching/detaching the hood and the hassle with expensive filters.
I no longer own the Zuiko 18/3.5 or the Tamron 17/3.5 - but I would not recommend the Tamron 17/3.5 for a general purpose landscape lens. Sure, with the right focus point, at the right aperture, with ther right light - you can get a good picture. But, the same can be said for many of the zooms that cover 17mm.
), cogitech wrote:
Considering that it performs basically on par with the Zuiko 18 (but with much less vignetting), I'd say it is easily worth $240.
Some sellers ask for way to much on ebay. Unfortunately for others, sometimes buyers will pay that amount. Regardless, the Zuiko 18/3.5 clearly deserves to be at a higher price point than the Tamron 17/3.5.
I don't have any "keepers" from the Tamron 17/3.5's (all three). If I did I would have proudly posted them here like I did for other great finds at the time. I did sell at least one of them here on the B&S board, and I think I provided a sample pic. I do have some old samples from the Zuiko 18/3.5 that I posted previously - saying what a great lens it was. The lack of distortion and corner performance are well known traits of the Zuiko 18/3.5.
pdmphoto wrote:
None of my three copies of the Tamron 17/3.5 (all EX+ to mint) came close to my Zuiko for distortion (close to none on the Zuiko) or corner sharpness (near perfect on the Zuiko) . The micro-contrast of the Zuiko is also much better, with the Tamron being poor in that regard. I also found the colors (especially greens and blues) were washed out on the Tamron 17's, and it was too easy to cause flare and ghosting.
I tested my Tamron 17/3.5's with the original Adaptall-EOS converter, or a Nikon Ai or Oly OM + appropriate adapter, and the hood. No combination of lens copy or adapter fitting gave me results anywhere near the Zuiko 18/3.5. Keep in mind I mainly do landscape photography, and I want excellent sharpness across the frame. There's usually a large amount of detail, and demanding light challenges, in the frame.
The Zuiko 18/3.5, even with the 49-72mm ring, is still very small. The Tamron 17/3.5 with the hood is close to twice the size. The Zuiko can take a 72mm filter, while the Tamron requires a (PITA) 82mm filter in the hood. I got tired of attaching/detaching the hood and the hassle with expensive filters.
I no longer own the Zuiko 18/3.5 or the Tamron 17/3.5 - but I would not recommend the Tamron 17/3.5 for a general purpose landscape lens. Sure, with the right focus point, at the right aperture, with ther right light - you can get a good picture. But, the same can be said for many of the zooms that cover 17mm.
Apparently this isn't the thread for you. I still haven't seen any proof of what you say. I've never seen any evidence that the Zuiko has better corners, and the Tamron's colours are at least as good, if not better. The evidence that I have seen with respect to controlled tests put the Tamron ahead of the Zuiko in corner resolution. Why do you keep ignoring that test? They used multiple copies of each lens and the Tamron is obviously as good or better. Sure, everyone loves to love Zuikos, but the high price is just not worth it in this case. Not to us Tamron 17/3.5 lovers, anyway. Like I said, this isn't a thread for you.
pdmphoto wrote:
Regardless, the Zuiko 18/3.5 clearly deserves to be at a higher price point than the Tamron 17/3.5.
I don't have any "keepers" from the Tamron 17/3.5's (all three). If I did I would have proudly posted them here like I did for other great finds at the time.
Cogitech, I am (and always have been) a big fan of the Tamron Adaptall system for FF digital. I still currently have an excellent copy of the 24/2.5, 35-80/2.8-3.8, and the excellent 70-210/2.8. I was also a huge fan of thier 400/4 LD (which I regretably sold to finance another purchase). I have owned just about every Tamron adaptall lens ever made. At one point I had three of the original Adaptall-EOS adapters. I still own two. If you smell something it must be coming from between your ears.
You've just never been able to explain why Modern Photography's multiple-sample tests of these lenses show the Tamron to be the superior lens in more ways than one, yet you maintain that it is not even close. I choose to believe Modern Photography's evaluation, and my experience with two samples of the Tamron have led me to that conclusion. Your conclusions do not coincide in the least. So, you tell me; why does this smell fishy?
Classic problem though. How do you show that a lens is as bad as you say it is? Other that giving it to me to shoot, that is, I can make great lenses look really bad
Modern Photography's tests rule out the photographer. They also rule out sample variation. Empirical vs. anecdotal evidence, and it just so happens that my direct experience is right in line with the empirical evidence published by Modern Photo. Why someone may come to a completely different conclusion and then present that anecdotal evidence in a thread dedicated to the lens in question is beyond me.
No empirical vs ancedotal about it. I shot both for a few years and know what I found. If you want to take (indoor) (test shot) (flash strobe) test from Modern Photography so be it. By all means, buy all your lenses on that respect. Just don't entice others to...
I'm responding because I have good experience with both lenses, on FF digital, and with this forum. This thread seems to keep reserecting itself, so you are giving me a need to repeat myself. Perhaps, you are hoping I'll just go away (giving everyone the opportunity to "pump and dump")? I've been around long enough to see it happen before
Sorry
cogitech wrote:
Modern Photography's tests rule out the photographer. They also rule out sample variation. Empirical vs. anecdotal evidence, and it just so happens that my direct experience is right in line with the empirical evidence published by Modern Photo. Why someone may come to a completely different conclusion and then present that anecdotal evidence in a thread dedicated to the lens in question is beyond me.
I have to say that one thing that bugs me with all these examples is the contrast. Very harsh. If I was convinced that the Tammy is as good (better?) than the Zuiko I would sell my Zuiko and get the Tammy. The cash would do me good. But I am not very impressed by these photos. The ones that are great are not because of the lens but thanks to the skilled photographers.
AbramG wrote:
Do you guys think $240 is too much for this lens?
The only way it is worth $240 is IF it comes with everything like it was new. Hood, adaptall mount, case, box.
