|
If it's the bokeh that's bothering you it might be worth it (heck, the Nikon 17-55 is good but it's hugely expensive) to look at photos from the Sigma 18-50 2.8 and see if it offers any improvements.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Also if anyone has any examples of the bokeh produced on the nikon lens please post
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
examples abound in the nikkor group's pool
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Following picture was taken with D300 and Nikkor 17-55mm @ f/3.5.
Or go to Nikkor AF-S 17-55 f/2.8D Group
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Wow, that does look bad - strange, cause my 17-50 has really nice smooth bokeh at 2.8. Your shots look a lot like my 50mm f/1.8! This is probably another area where the uneven quality control of third-party lenses comes into play.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Here's a couple from the 17-55 @ 2.8:
One @ 6.3 (but close focus):
And one @ f8 even:
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yea I think its strange, its honestly the only thing I am not happy with. The sharpness of this lens is outstanding. At first I was thinking it could be due to lighting or focal length but if you look at all the pics above they are all different in those aspects
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think it's the lighting in your photos. I'm no expert but I have the tamron too and I've gotten the bokeh effects like burnblue has. Your photos aren't lit in a way that would produce that, in my opinion.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Titanfan...the 1st and 3rd photos have allot of light. I do understand what you mean though as I was looking for differences in these photos which could be causing it. i am also not a pro as i have only been shotting for about 6 months now.
From what i have seen ou usually you need smaller areas of concentrated light to produce the more defined bokeh..but I am talking about the smooth type bokeh that is not as pronounced and is not harsh like in Burnblue's 2nd photo.
If you look at burnblues 1st picture and Davidjst's 2nd picture you can see what i mean about teh harsher bokeh.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yes...I do see that. I still don't think your lighting situation is conducive to producing the same. I think it's more of a lighting angle and exposure that isn't working for you in those.
But my opinion is worth exactly what you paid. :)
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@evan.hunter: I always wondered why the bokeh in my second was harsher than normal.. thought it was due to the leaves being more complex in terms of shape and what not.. but it was very bright that day.. and so the leaves were definitely reflecting all kind of not so friendly light. Good to know for future reference, thanks!
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yea there is no doubt that the lens is a great value...Like I said I would not even consider it if it wasn't for the bokeh performance. I look at some pics I took and cannot believe how sharp the lens is and couldn't imagine anything sharper. I am into lowlight shooting mainly so low light performance is big with me, the tamron also isn't the fastest at focusing in low light but its acceptable
this picture blown up at full rez is insane how clear it is
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Rent the 17-55 and do side-by-side comparison shots and see what you think. That's the way to see if the Nikkor will do what you're wanting. You can rent it online for $60 or $70.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Good idea titanfan, do you know where I can rent a lens from?
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
In two of the examples you have posted the main subject is not in focus. In the first one - it looks like focus has led slightly - her shoulder is sharper than her face/eyes and in the third - it looks like it has been trying to pick up the rocks in the background.
The second is too small in your stream to give any real clues.
The first example in BW might also be a little underexposed on her face with over-exposed highlights on her hat (a bit of a nightmare to meter - especially for digital)
I suspect that post processing has had more to do with the appearance of the background in these. Particularly an over-sharpening but also a bit of pulling of levels as well?
How did you do the BW conversion? - that can also have a huge impact on image quality.
Originally posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
photopath edited this topic 53 months ago.
|
|
|
I know they are not the best examples due to the focus issues you mentioned I use a preset and lightroom for my BW conversions mainly and will adjust levels in Photoshop somewhat. I still think regardless of the somewhat oversharpened and somewhat out of focus subjects that the bokeh is not smooth and has a harshness to it which is due to the lens. I am not trying to blame the lens totally as i am somewhat new to photography but I have seen this with other peoples photos with this lens which leads me to believe it is due to the lens
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I've used www.ziplens.com before. It's like renting a movie from netflix, they send you a resealable envelope to send it back in a week. I rented both the 85mm f/1.4 and f/1.8 to compare. My son used another outfit that sounded better but I don't remember who they are. I say better in that I think they had a bigger selection and were more timely on getting the lenses out to you. It'll be later this week before I talk to my son to find out what that place was. You can check into ziplens and see what you think. There are some on here that have used them because this is where I first heard of them. I think it was in the D200 group actually.
Edit: I just looked and they have the 17-55 in stock for $45 for a one week rental. I'd give it a try but I'm afraid it might entice me to upgrade.
Originally posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
Titanfan edited this topic 53 months ago.
|
|
www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=lens+rent+nikon&btn...
edit: If you're in NYC, haha, go by here and get the weekend rate on a Phase One P45. It may help wean you off of your NAS ... I think it would do me. (They do provide the back with a body; H series lenses are available.)
Ziplens
Rentglass
LookingGlass
ProfessionalPhotographic Resources (PPR) is in Atlanta.
Some rent online, others you need to go pick it up locally. Calumet does some leasing.
/..
Originally posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
OldUncleMe edited this topic 53 months ago.
|
|
|
Thx I will give it a try..may give me an opportunity to checkout the 85mm I wanted also :)
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
What's in the background, the lighting, and how far it is plays a role. You won't be able to make a really good comparison unless you use both lenses in the same type of situation.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Does anyone know how the Sigma and Tamron version compare at f/2.8?
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
tamron 17-50 has horrible bokeh, and is a pile of crap compared to the 17-55 imo. Everything is better with it.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Even the sigma 18-50 hsm macro is better than the tamron 17-50...
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If you want a great bokeh then you really want to buy the 85mm f/1.4. I don't think I've ever taken a picture with that lens that showed a "harsh" bokeh.
Take these 4 for example done with different lightings conditions (indoors and outdoors):
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well comparing a 1.4 aperture to a 2.8 I don't think is fair. I do love the bokeh on the 85 but also on my 50 1.4. but i do not think its a fair comparison as for one those are prime lens and the aperture is not even close
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Fair enough. You're right
Originally posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
John Chukwuma edited this topic 53 months ago.
|
|
I have this lens and two other "DX only lenses" Personally, If I do add new lenses this year, I am only going to add lenses that are compatible with full frame camera bodies. You seem to have a good case of NAS as do I and in 5 years or less I am certain that I will have upgraded to a FF body.
My suggestion is that if you are considering a $1200 (US) 17-55 2.8 DX, why not step up to a $1450 Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8 or the new $1700 24-70mm f/2.8 and be prepaired for FF when it comes knocking oun your door?
Or save some cash and get some more Nikon primes (35 2.0 or 85 1.8) and you will be ready for your new D400 FX in 2009.
Also, I notice on your profile that you don't have a wide angle zoom. If you are thinking about adding a DX lens get a 12-24 for $800 or sigma 10-20 or tokina 12-24 for $500. You won't believe how fun it is to shoot with a wide angle lens.
Originally posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
MortonPhotography edited this topic 53 months ago.
|
|
|
I am dying to get a wide angle, I will either be purchasing a Nikon 85mm (1.4 or 1.8 depends on if I go with the 17-55) OR the sigma 10-20 next. I just got a D300 so i will be set for awhile and dont really feel the need for FF as the cost is just to high. I was considering the 24-70 2.8 if i did get rid of the tamron but not sure if I would miss the 17mm focal length on my walkaround lens...I tend to shoot closer to 17 then I do over 50...but I also don't own a lens that shoots over 50 so that could be the reason :)
I am going to start doing some freelance so i want to make sure i have top notch gear as I want to be able to charge at a certain point and recoup or buy more gear that is why i am considering switching to the 17-55 nikon and getting a 85mm nikon prime before the sigma 10-20
Originally posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
[evan hunter] edited this topic 53 months ago.
|
|
|
Just a thought:
In you freelance endeavors you may be looking at doing portraits and product work. The product work may include doing close up photography so as such maybe you should consider the 105mm or the Tamron 90mm. Both of those lenses have been known to do double duty and get high marks in both regards. Just my thoughts when considering what you have and what is in your photostream.
I understand the urge to go wider. I have that desire also.
Originally posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
Titanfan edited this topic 53 months ago.
|
|
|
Titanfan- yea I agree I am looking for something in that type of focal length...I was thinking 85 but am now also looking into the 105, the nikon 105 isnt as fast but it has VR which I do not know right now if it would make a difference. i am going to read up on the nikon 105
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think the bokeh on my Tamron is pretty smooth and nice actually:
If you usually shoot at the wider end with this lens then presumably the bokeh isn't that frequent an issue, as the DOF is only narrow when it's zoomed in, focused quite close and pretty wide open (as in my examples). You already have the 50 1.4 for that kind of shooting - it will be a lot better for low-light and narrow DOF work, presumably (I haven't tried one).
I do think you should consider spending the money on the 85mm 1.4 if bokeh and portrait work is important - people rave about it and there are some amazing shots out there. Some of your portraits are really nice and you could do well with this lens. This guy is one of the best portrait shooters I've seen and he raves about it (and the 50 1.4) - check out the smooth bokeh here with the "cream machine" on the camera www.flickr.com/photos/nute/1511062926/
Equally, the 24- or 28-70 would probably make more sense than the 17-55, as they'll be even more likely to produce a narrow DOF and you will presumably get a superwide at some point. And I bet you do go FF within the next five years or so - easily within the intended lifespan of one of these pro lenses.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
tripowski you bring up a good point concerning the focal length. As for the 85 I am considering the 1.4 and even possibly the 105 2.8 I am goign to wait to see what my tax return looks like i hopefully purchase the 85 1.4 and either 17-55 or 24-70 Nikon. I am doing more freelance work so I want to have top notch glass
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The 17-55 rocks. It simply rocks.
I leave it on my camera unless I need something else... which most of the time - I don't.
It's insanely sharp.
At f/2.8
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think I may go for the 17-55 unless i decide to go with the 24-70 Its a tough choice as I know I will miss the 17mm focal length but I hear the 24-70 is even sharper...I am going to get a sigma 10-20 regardless so that may cover my wide angle needs
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have only had my Nikkor 17-55 for a short time so not many to choose from.
This was taken with the 17-55 at f/2.8 with no flash under a fluorescent light.
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
you'll get the harsher bokeh with any zoom, i think.
Of course on some it will be less noticable, like the 70-200, but that 17-55 and 17-50 don't really seem to differ much in that aspect.
Now if it were for focussing speed, build quality, and pimpness :D now that would be a different story
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I hope that You all realize - on DX sensor yours f2.8 becomes roughly f4.2 in terms of depth of field :)
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I say go for it! The 17-55 is my perfect lens. I scrimped and saved for it and I am so glad I did.
Some at 2.8
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
" I hope that You all realize - on DX sensor yours f2.8 becomes roughly f4.2 in terms of depth of field :) "
Why? Is this really true?
Doesn't the DX sensor simply capture a smaller portion of what the lens sees (sort of like cropping a photo)? Why would that have any effect at all on depth of field?
Is there something more to this that I am not understanding?
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Well, there's alot of math involved in that answer. But to make a long story short, the sensor or film size affects the "crop factor". For example, a "normal lens" (lens that closely approximates the human vision angle of view) on a 35mm film camera is about 50mm, but on a medium format camera it's more like 90mm. We all know that focal length affects bokeh as well, so Even though those lenses are both "normal lenses" and you may shoot them both at F/2.8, the larger format will always have less depth of field. SO, knowing your dx sensor is even smaller than the 35mm piece of film, your focal length will act longer in terms of angle of view, but NOT in depth of field.
THAT was the short answer!
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
if I understand it right the depth of field will be exactly the same for a given focal length & aperture when both cameras (full frame & DX) are the same distance from the subject. Of course the field of view will be different so that's not really a fair comparison because one would naturally get closer to a given subject with a full frame camera than a DX camera in order to get the same field of view, hence asokko's comment. What he is referring to, I believe, is the depth of field of a DX vs full frame camera when the field of view is the same (meaning the physical distance of the cameras from the subject will be different) in which case the full frame camera will have a shallower depth of field.
if I am mistaken then someone correct me! :-)
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
That's the way I understand it too. I was reading in a Hasselblad group where a couple of guys are trying to put their Carl Zeiss Hasselblad lenses on a Canon DSLR. They asked what would happen. Well, nothing. An 80mm is an 80mm is an 80mm. It would act just like an Nikon, Cannon, Sigma, Tamaron 80mm would on that camera, like a moderate telephoto (that's heavy, manual focus and hard to deal with). Whereas it would act like a normal lens with amazing depth of field on a Hasselblad.
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Charles and David - you are right.
Simple test: attach 35mm f2 lens on DX camera ( camera on a tripod)
attach 50mm f1.4 lens on FFcamera (camera on tripod, same position as previously DX camera). Set both lenses on their maximum aperture and you've got roughly same photo in terms of depth of field.
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I forgot to mention, put any subject in front of lens to see the effect of the test. This is why fast lenses are required on dx, otherwise your frames will have greater depth of field; maybe you need it. Just multiply now f numbers by 1.5, 1.6, or even 2 (Olympus/Panasonic) factor and think again why you need full-frame.
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I've never heard this theory before, however I can see some logic in it as focal length is directly relational to DOF, so if the crop factor affects the focal length, it should affect DOF. But I don't know myself.
Now to the discussion at hand. I have the Nikon 17-55 2.8 and like others here who own it as well, I absolutely love it. I have not owned the Tamron 17-50 2.8, but I did have a Tamron 28-75 2.8 and hated it. The Tammy only has 7 aperature blades and definitely didn't produce the bokeh that my Nikkor does. In fact, I have the Nikon 50mm 1.8 and I did a test for bokeh and the 50mm1.8 had only SLIGHTLY smoother bokeh at 1.8 compared to the 2.8 on the17-55. At 2.8, the 17-55 was way better than the 50mm ( again less blades, 6 I think on this one ).
The question is, if this is the only advantage that the Nikon offers for you, is it worth the cost...only you can answer that. Suffice to say that the Nikon is an excellent lens in every aspect and won't disappoint you and it's extremely well built ( and sealed ) so it should outlast the Tammy, which is why you will definitely get a better trade-in vlaue for it down the road than the Tammy.
A few thoughts.
Cheers
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
tomnorth [deleted] says:
Åsokko: Simple test: attach 35mm f2 lens on DX camera ( camera on a tripod) attach 50mm f1.4 lens on FFcamera (camera on tripod, same position as previously DX camera). Set both lenses on their maximum aperture and you've got roughly same photo in terms of depth of field.
This is incorrect. Check it out on www.dofmaster.com. The DOF on a D200 with a 35mm lens at f/2.0 focused at a subject at 10 ft. is 1.99 ft. The DOF on a D3 with a 50mm lens at f/1.4 focused at a subject at 10 ft. is 1.02 ft. The crop factor does not affect the DOF. It affects the field of view.
I edited this to correct my typo. The DOF measurements didn't change. I just corrected the f/stops.
Originally posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
tomnorth edited this topic 51 months ago.
|
|
|
I think Asokko put the 50 1.4 on the FX and 35 F2 on the DX. Your test lists 35 at 1.4 and 50 at F2.
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
If you put a 50mm 1.4 lens on a full frame at some aperture (call it 1.4) and focus 10 ft from the subject.. and then put the same lens on a DX camera also set to f/1.4 and also focus 10 ft from the subject (aka cameras are same focal length, same aperture, same distance from the subject) will the depth of field be the same? My assumption was yes. Turns out I am slightly off in that in that the full frame camera would actually have a slightly deeper depth of field (1.19 ft vs .79 ft), not shallower. (or so the calculator I used says).
The field of view would of course be different. But if you were to get closer to the subject with the full frame camera such that the field of view was the same as the DX camera @ 10 ft (which is really what most people would do anyway to frame the same shot), the camera being closer to the subject would cause the depth of field on the full frame camera to be shallower than the DX camera was at 10 ft. This is what people refer to when they say full frame cameras have a shallower depth of field than a DX camera - because to get the same field of view you have to get closer, and getting closer reduces the focusing distance which makes the depth of field shallower.
Now.. if I am still off on this please correct me! Need to get these things right you know. :-)
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
my tests comes from real life. 35mm lens at f2 on D200 then 50mm lens at f1.4 on D3 [bloddy not mine] :( subject was 1 meter away. I regret that I didn't save this shot to show you guys. magic, but blur around main subject seems very similar.
Originally posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
darius k. edited this topic 51 months ago.
|
|
tomnorth [deleted] says:
My point is, whether or not a camera if FX or DX does not affect DOF. What does is the "circle of confusion" which on a D3 is 0.03mm vs. 0.02mm on a D200. The D2XS has the same circle of confusion as the D200 and has the same DOF.
Davidjst: It depends on which FX and DX cameras. If the circle of confusion is the same then the DOF would be the same. The COC on a D3 is larger than on a D200, so the DOF would not be the same.
Originally posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
tomnorth edited this topic 51 months ago.
|
|
@evan
i'm curious as to the outcome?! please do let us know, i am looking at those two (actually three, the 24-70) also.
my reasoning had more to do with faster af and the full time manual override of the nikkor.
edit: nevermind, i just looked at your stream and noticed your tags. oops.
Originally posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
Simply Milo edited this topic 51 months ago.
|
|
|
Thanks Tom! Makes sense now. Not that i am about to go and buy a D3 any time soon or anything. ha ha ha
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
tomnorth: Ok... newbie question: It may not matter if the camera is FX or DX, but assuming the camera is a DX:
Is the COC different for an FX Lens on a DX Body versus a DX Lens on a DX Body?
all: The reason I'm asking is I am leaning toward upgrading to / or only purchasing FX Lenses in the future. My thinking is I will be using the "sweet spot" on a DX Body i.e. less CA, sharper, etc. etc.?
So that reasoning points me to the 17-35mm f2.8, and the new 24-70 f2.8 FX Nikkor lenses.
Thanks!
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
My Tamron is just as good IQ wise as the Nikkor. If I needed the build quality I would've went for the Nikon. If you get a a perfect copy of the Tamron it is hard to beat. Getting that copy is the pain though. SO the question is...
Do you want to look hard for one?
IMHO
The 17-50 is the only non-Nikkor I would buy too.
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I struggled with the price of the 17-55mm 2.8 also. But came to my senses and dove in. I'm not looking back and am completely satisfied. It's well built, produces beautiful images, and the color rendition is amazing.
One of my first shots seen below:
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@matthewjrice: If you get a a perfect copy of the Tamron it is hard to beat. Getting that copy is the pain though. SO the question is...
Do you want to look hard for one?
I bought one a year ago and have been extremely happy with it. So much so that last Christmas I saw one used at b&h and bought it for my son's Christmas present and his is great also. That's two for two. Wasn't hard at all.
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
It wasn't hard for me either. Just one copy, but my friend went through 3 and finally got the Nikkor.
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I had the Tamron (sold it) and now I own the Nikkor. My Tamron wasn't bad, but wide open at 2.8 the Nikon was definitely sharper. By 5.6 they were both the same. The big issue for me is the focusing. The Nikon is way faster, and just looking at my pictures of my 16 month old there are way more in focus with the Nikon than the Tamron. But the Tamron is a GREAT lens for its price.
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I rented the Nikkor 2.8 on and off for 2 years, mainly for bigger events. It is built very very sturdy. I never had to worry about it feeling like it would break every time it got bumped. However, I went to the L.A. Camera show, and saw the Tamron for $280.00.
I tried the Tamron, and could not see the $1000 price difference in my images. It was nothing a little bit of enhancement or unsharpening a mask couldn't fix.
The funny thing is, most of my wider shots which have been published in fashion magazines over the last 2 years are from my Tamron glass images.
Only thing I don't like about the 17-50 Tamron is that it feels like it's going to break everytime I move around with it or it gets slightly bumped at an event.
Originally posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
vStitchv edited this topic 51 months ago.
|
|
The only way I would say you were crazy is if you purchased the Tamron instead of the Nikon 17-55..
Just my opinion though..
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Well, I'm crazy because I bought the tamron and lost it in my house somewhere last december!
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'd say it's time for a house cleaning.
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The tamron 17-50 is a winner
Posted 43 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
To be honest if you already have the Tamron and you're willing to spend the money for the 17-55. I'd argue that you should get the 24-70 instead. If your (main?) complaint about the Tamron is bokeh, you'd be better off getting the lens that is considered the best 'normal' zoom lens nikon makes (14-24 is close, but different range) than it's DX cousin. Keep the 17-50 if you really think you're going to need something wider for walking around. But investing in the 24-70 now will pay off immensely in the future, and is once less lens to sell whenever you decide to go full frame.
Posted 43 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
Nikon Digital /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Nikon Digital discussion threads
