Not sure I can quantify the difference...the images out of the 17-50 just don't seem to "pop" the way the ones from the 28-75 did, for me at least. Keep in mind that I used them on 2 different bodies: the 28-75 on the *istD and the17-50 on the D200. I'm considering selling the 17-50 and maybe at some point getting the Nikon 17-55 if I feel the need. I agree, at 1/3 the cost of the Nikon, the Tam is a great value, which is why I got it instead, but I just don't like it as much.
Amita On Jan 6, 2008 11:22 PM, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > INteresting, I would have said the 17-50 is as good as the 28-75, > certainly the two examples I've had the chance to try were. (It also > does well in comparison to the Nikon 17-55, not quite the equal, but > 1/3 the cost). > > -Adam > > > On 1/6/08, Amita Guha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nor is the Tamron as good as its 28-75mm brother. I had the Sigma > > 18-50mm f/2.8 in K mount, and it worked just fine, although I didn't > > love it. > > > > On Jan 6, 2008 6:49 PM, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The Tamron 17-50 isn't available in K mount. > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > > follow the directions. > > > > > -- > M. Adam Maas > http://www.mawz.ca > Explorations of the City Around Us. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
