Đánh giá lens tamron 18-55 năm 2024
|
Ok if I ask same question other way like this maybe. Do u still use your kit lens after buying Tamron 17-50 f2.8? If u still use ur kit lens why u still use it? I know there is so many talk about this tamron lens here but i just want to make this simple for me to understand and that is the reason why i ask this LightBug • Senior Member • Posts: 2,824 Re: 18-55 kit lens vs Tamron 17-50 f2.8 In reply to 123jippo • Dec 1, 2009 I have not used the kit lens at all since getting the Tamron 28-75 F2.8. Since I don't shoot very wide, 28mm is fine for me, and 75mm + F2.8 is more useful for indoor shooting. The macro capability of the Tamron is pretty nice, allowing me to get up close even at 75mm. Joey Pentax 645Z Pentax Q-S1 Pentax KP Ricoh Theta V Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited +19 more Tom Ommen • Regular Member • Posts: 208 Re: 18-55 kit lens vs Tamron 17-50 f2.8 In reply to 123jippo • Dec 1, 2009 I have the kit and am pleased with it but do not own the tamron. If you go to SLRgear.com you can compare two extensive tests of both lenses. Comparing the blur index, the tamron has a slight advantage wide open, but there is no real difference from f4 on as far as I can see. hanhait • Senior Member • Posts: 1,297 Re: 18-55 kit lens vs Tamron 17-50 f2.8 In reply to 123jippo • Dec 1, 2009 The advantage is in the higher aperture; at 50 mm it is 2 stops better and that is considerable. The quality of the Tamron might be a bit better at the same apertures, but you will not notice that. Once the Tamron is on your camera there is no reason to use the kit-lens again. Pentax K100D Pentax K-5 Tamron SP AF 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Pentax smc D-FA 100mm F2.8 Macro WR Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro +9 more Jan Rinze • Regular Member • Posts: 252 Tamron 28-75 F2.8 In reply to LightBug • Dec 1, 2009 LightBugwrote: I have not used the kit lens at all since getting the Tamron 28-75 F2.8. Since I don't shoot very wide, 28mm is fine for me, and 75mm + F2.8 is more useful for indoor shooting. The macro capability of the Tamron is pretty nice, allowing me to get up close even at 75mm. Same here. The Tamron 28-75 F2.8 is 80% of the time my favorite lens. Now i got a Sigma 50-150 F2.8 we'll see how these two compete in the long run. The kit lens 18-55 WR is now fitted on my K200D and it seems to be a heck of a performer. Combined with the K200D it gives me a walk around combo that feels like a tank so to speak. -- Jan Rinze http://picasaweb.google.com/janrinze Pentax K-1 Pentax K-3 Mark III Pentax K-3 Mark III Monochrome Pentax smc FA 50mm F1.4 Pentax smc DA* 300mm F4.0 ED (IF) SDM +6 more OP 123jippo • New Member • Posts: 10 Re: Tamron 28-75 F2.8 Ok, tnx. but anyway i myself need more wide ancle than Tamron 28-75 F2.8 can give. Actually pentax kit lens is just fine focal lenght range and also picture quality, i am very pleased with kit lens really. I am only wondering here if i can get even better pictures by buying tamron 17-50 f2.8... I not need tamron 17-50 f2.8 for getting more light cos i have few fixed focal lens for that purposes already. OP 123jippo • New Member • Posts: 10 Re: 18-55 kit lens vs Tamron 17-50 f2.8 In reply to hanhait • Dec 1, 2009 Ok. I will save my money and not buy tamron if picture quality is about same level and i can not even see much improvement. Anyway i have few f1.4 fixed focal lens already so that tamron f2.8 is not really much needed for me. Tnx Tan68 • Veteran Member • Posts: 5,792 Re: 18-55 kit lens vs Tamron 17-50 f2.8 - PS In reply to 123jippo • Dec 1, 2009 i agree the 28-75 would be a good choice for indoor snapshots. as far as the 17-50, i do believe it can be better than the kit lens in some cases. and these cases are those that are not captured in the SLRGear tests... i haven't used my kit lens in months (this answers one of your questions) but when i first got my 17-50, i compared them. i meant to post what i found but was too... busy (lazy?) at 17 for the Tamron and 18 for the kit, pictures with a lot of depth (like landscapes) looked better with the Tamron. i was able to see more detail in distant elements like trees. as a few have pointed out, the kit has some sharp apertures, but the detail in the distance is the sort of thing is not captured by the SLRGear tests.. i realise this isn't exactly a fair comparison because the 17mm focal length should have more depth of field (apertures for the comparison were the same). and, would something like this matter for your intended use ? the Tamron can be very sharp. the curvature of field thing (described at photozone.de) is real. i will try to take some pictures this weekend to be sure what i recall as far as detail in the distance is correct. then, i will post what i find. sorry for all the comments in parentheses (i just am in a parenthetic mood). PS never mind about the comparison... i have the kit lens version 1. since the newer kit lenses are available, my comparison wouldn't really mean that much... so, maybe i wasn't lazy and realised the comparison would not longer be of much interest (makes me feel better to think that) however, if you have the kit lens v1 and are interested, let me know. godfrog • Senior Member • Posts: 1,463 Re: 18-55 kit lens vs Tamron 17-50 f2.8 In reply to 123jippo • Dec 1, 2009 Since buying my Tamron 17-50/2.8 I have not used my kit lens. The Tamron is better in all respects except possibly size/weight, but it is still very compact by F2.8 standards. The difference between the lenses is big, at the long end the Tamron is two stops faster and is miles better att isolating subjects using shallow DOF. At shared apertures the Tamron is better, in low light the Tamron is better. If you dont want those benefits, if you are a landscape photographer always shooting from a tripod at F8-11, you are not going to notice a difference. tufir • Regular Member • Posts: 277 Sorry, noob question In reply to Tan68 • Dec 1, 2009 What exactly is "curvature of field"? OP 123jippo • New Member • Posts: 10 Re: 18-55 kit lens vs Tamron 17-50 f2.8 In reply to Tan68 • Dec 1, 2009 Tan68wrote: i agree the 28-75 would be a good choice for indoor snapshots. I have also FA 28-70 f4 lens but i not use much cos i do find that it is not wide enough for me, also inside. i haven't used my kit lens in months (this answers one of your questions) Ok this tells me alot more than tests yes at 17 for the Tamron and 18 for the kit, pictures with a lot of depth (like landscapes) looked better with the Tamron. i was able to see more detail in distant elements like trees. as a few have pointed out, the kit has some sharp apertures, but the detail in the distance is the sort of thing is not captured by the SLRGear tests.. Yes that can also seen from test graphs that tamron is better in wide end and other focal lengts is about same. Sometimes 18mm shots with kit lens are little soft yes but then mostly sharp enough. i realise this isn't exactly a fair comparison because the 17mm focal length should have more depth of field (apertures for the comparison were the same). and, would something like this matter for your intended use ? Not really 17mm and 18mm are so very near... i will try to take some pictures this weekend to be sure what i recall as far as detail in the distance is correct. then, i will post what i find. That would be very intresting to see really. Tnx Tan68 • Veteran Member • Posts: 5,792 Re: Sorry, noob question In reply to tufir • Dec 1, 2009 curvature of the field of focus. the review for the Tamron 17-50 at photozone.de has a little diagram and explains it a bit. it matters most if your subject is completely flat like a brick wall.. i think there is no Tamron review for Pentax (may remember incorrectly) so check the one for Nikon mount. tufir • Regular Member • Posts: 277 Re: Sorry, noob question In reply to Tan68 • Dec 1, 2009 I did before. Just don't understand how it becomes apparent - when using a wide angle focus point in the camera or are the bricks at the border out of focus when using the center point (then it wouldn't get those good resolution charts?)? alanr0 • Senior Member • Posts: 2,593 Field curvature In reply to tufir • Dec 1, 2009 tufirwrote: I did before. Just don't understand how it becomes apparent - when using a wide angle focus point in the camera or are the bricks at the border out of focus when using the center point (then it wouldn't get those good resolution charts?)? The bricks at the edge will be slightly out of focus. Alternatively, the edges will be sharp, and the centre out of focus. If there is significant field curvature Photozone will use slightly different focus settings for the centre sharpness and edge sharpness measurements. This is helpful if you want to know how sharp the lens can be when the main subject is to one side. It will over-estimate the sharpness in parts of the field with flat (or distant) subjects aligned across the direction the camera is pointed. In contrast when field curvature is present, Dpreview selects a compromise focus setting for the entire field. This gives a good idea of how well you can image brick walls, and is probably more useful for distant subjects. However, this may under-estimate the sharpness that is possible in the centre. In most cases, the effect of field curvature will be minimal when the aperture is reduced by one or two stops. Hope this helps -- Alan Robinson tufir • Regular Member • Posts: 277 Yes, thank you. In reply to alanr0 • Dec 1, 2009 Just one thing: I've only read about curvature in this lens review. Does it only appear with the Tamron (maybe because you wouldn't recognize it on a kit lens since the aperture is slower and so more in focus?) or is it so negligible that they never mention it? ben soo • Junior Member • Posts: 34 Re: 18-55 kit lens vs Tamron 17-50 f2.8 In reply to 123jippo • Dec 1, 2009 i had to replace the kit WR lens twice before i got a good sample, but it was third time lucky and ended up with a pretty sharp lens, and great colour. The Tamron 17-50 i had to replace once. The second unit is pretty sharp. It doesn't have as good colour as the kit lens, but is sharper and lets in more light. My sample over-exposes at f2.8 and progressively underexposes as i stop down, so i have to remember to compensate. The Tamron is also sharp enough at f2.8 i don't mind shooting wide open, and that lets me use it hand-held at night, shooting ISO200-400. The majority of my photos are urban landscapes so it's not common for me to need to have distant foliage in sharp focus. In this use i don't notice any shortcomings the kit WR lens might have in that regard. It does let me shoot in the rain, the kind that soaks me to the bottom of my socks, and i really like that. i used it mounted on my tripod middle of last week, and the rain was heavy enough my tripod legs are still wet today when i extend its legs. So i use both lenses and have great shots from both. alanr0 • Senior Member • Posts: 2,593 Re: Yes, thank you. In reply to tufir • Dec 1, 2009 tufirwrote: Just one thing: I've only read about curvature in this lens review. Does it only appear with the Tamron (maybe because you wouldn't recognize it on a kit lens since the aperture is slower and so more in focus?) or is it so negligible that they never mention it? I have not tested either lens personally. If field curvature is large enough to notice, I would expect it to be mentioned in the better quality reviews. As you point out, the kit will be more tolerant at f:4 than the Tamron at F:2.8. Photozone do mention it for other lenses, such as the Pentax DA 15 Ltd. Cheers. -- Alan Robinson Sheld • Senior Member • Posts: 1,899 The kit lens is light ... In reply to 123jippo • Dec 1, 2009 I have begun appreciating that the kit lens is light, so it compliments well with other lenses like the Tamron 28-75mm, that I also own, in a two lens traveling package. I also own the 16-45mm, but its a little bigger, so I don't use it as much as the kit lens. I really enjoy the wide aperture of the 28-75mm F/2.8
Ok, tnx. but anyway i myself need more wide ancle than Tamron 28-75 F2.8 can give. Actually pentax kit lens is just fine focal lenght range and also picture quality, i am very pleased with kit lens really. I am only wondering here if i can get even better pictures by buying tamron 17-50 f2.8... I not need tamron 17-50 f2.8 for getting more light cos i have few fixed focal lens for that purposes already.OP 123jippo • New Member • Posts: 10 Re: 18-55 kit lens vs Tamron 17-50 f2.8 In reply to ben soo • Dec 2, 2009 Yes kit lens have very good colors indeed for zoom lens and that is important to notice also...at least for me better colors is more important than better sharpness cos mostly my photos are sized down to more smaller size than original and then result looks very sharp even with kit lens. Very good point really Keyboard shortcuts: FForum MMy threads You may also likeLatest sample galleriesLatest in-depth reviewsThe fourth camera in Leica's SL series of full-frame mirrorless cameras sees the 60MP BSI sensor from the Q3 and M11 models arrive with a significant interface redesign. The Fujifilm X100VI is the sixth iteration of Fujifilm's classically-styled large sensor compact. A 40MP X-Trans sensor, in-body stabilization and 6.2K video are among the updates. The Nikon Zf is a 24MP full-frame mirrorless camera with classic looks that brings significant improvements to Nikon's mid-price cameras. We just shot a sample reel to get a better feel for its video features and have added our impressions to the review. This $250 electronic lens adapter is perfect for Nikon Z-mount curious Sony shooters — shhh, we won’t tell anyone. Sony updates the ZV-1, giving the vlog-centric compact camera a 18-50mm equivalent F1.8-4.0 lens that's now wide enough for less cramped selfie mode videos. Latest buying guidesWhat’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out. What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best. If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites. 'What's the best mirrorless camera?' We're glad you asked. Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder. |
