Another Tamron 16-50 VC question, AF and video - feedback please
triangular
Registered Users Posts: 27 Big grins
I need to replace a Nikkor 18-70mm 3.5-4.5G. Really great lens, used it on everything from a D2H to a D90 for years, but on the D7K it just doesn't cut it. I've replaced and purchased so many lenses around it that its now the lowest performer I've got for low light street photography at night, yet it spends more time with me than most of my lenses because of its perfect general purpose range.
I don't care for the Sigma 18-70mm f/2.8-4.0 because if I'm going to replace it with anything, its only worth it to get a fixed 2.8. I couldn't find a web page to verify this, but I'm assuming that Sigma doesn't stay 2.8 all the way to 50mm. As far as the Sigma 18-50, the cost on that lens is just under the cost of a Tokina 16-50, which I'd probably prefer at that price, unless enough people really praise it.
So it looks like I have to lose 20mm. I've already got enough dollars in glass spread elsewhere, so I think my choices are the Tammy 17-50 VC or non-VC 2.8, or the Tokina 16-50 f/2.8.
I would get the Tokina in a flash after testing it. But I have one other consideration that I just can't find much online to verify. And that is VC for video. Ive seen some vids online and it seems to work really well for video, which is honestly the only reason I'd consider the Tamron over the Tokina. But when I tested it in the store, the shop didn't know how to demo the VC for video, and I couldn't notice anything when shooting video.
With a D7K, I tried keeping the shutter half pressed while recording, although I've heard that VC automatically kicks in whenever its on and you go into Live View mode. For me I just couldn't tell a difference between it being on or off. And yet I could hear a little whispering sound while keeping the shutter down, which stopped when I released it, so I know it was engaged. This was the same for two different VC lenses I tried at two different stores. The VC wasn't loud as others claim, and I guess it worked because I was able to take a hand held shot at 1/10 that showed printed text clear and stable, but the whole VC experience was very subtle and nothing to pronounce that anything was really happening. I've also seen many reports of the "violent" VC action, shaking the frame initially, but I never saw that in either of the two 16-50 VC lenses that I tried. In shooting video, I just couldn't really see any difference at all in the hand held motion between it being on or off....so I was wondering how it is suppose to work in video mode?? And does it really make that much of a difference?
In general I really dislike Tamron lenses. I had one before and I felt so good to get rid of it. They all seem to be so loud and noisy, very slow to focus, cheaply made, and just kinda ugly. But I thought with all the positive reviews and the possibility of VC with video, I would try to like one. But there must be an incredible sample variety because many people have mixed experiences. Some say it is soft at 50mm 2.8, some are soft at 17mm. Some are slow to focus, some non-VC is sharper while some are equal, etc. etc. Always something different that's not consistent.
I tested two lenses at two different shops. The first one was not only very loud to focus, but also very slow. Not only slow but it hunted so much in low light. It would focus right beyond the mark, all the way to infinity and come back again, then finally settle out. I also found that even with decent indoor light it had the same terrible time focusing on anything that wasn't of a high contrast. It was a real lug of a snail's response. I just couldn't believe this would be acceptable to anybody. Is it really that slow and that prone to hunting in low light? Is that normal?
The 2nd copy didn't seem quite as loud, and though the focus did still move slow (I can see from watching the focus ring move), it still focused much faster than the first one because it didn't hunt quite so much, though it did sometimes still move past the mark and recycle back before locking, although the focus throw is so short to begin with that it shouldn't have much distance to manage.
But that's another concern. There's such a short distance from 7ft to infinity, does this lens mis-focus often? And doesn't that make it hard to manually focus, when you have a short 2.8 depth of field and shooting video? Or manually focusing on an eye for a portrait when shooting stills?
In comparison, the Tokina 16-50 has been around a long time and I think the early samples must have been improved upon, because it is dead sharp all over, including 2.8, really sweet and fast, silent AF that's very responsive and accurate, built possibly better than the Nikkor 17-55, and has a very comfortable manual focusing ring of good size and feel, long enough throw to work conveniently, plus includes the focus clutch mechanism to easily run in full time manual focus override and then flip back into AF without ever lifting your hand off the lens. I tested the Tokina against the Tamron at the same shop and evaluating the images on my PC, I think the Tokina was actually sharper at 50mm and 2.8. The only problem with the Tokina is some CA in high contrast areas tha is hard to get rid of, but only at 2.8 and mostly only against very bright high contrast edges. The Tokina also produces great looking soft bokeh, nicer than the Tamron from my short tests.
But the Tamron does have the VC, which I think I only care about if it works well for video, AND if the focus doesn't hunt too much for quick accuracy in street life, or in low light.
BTW I did not test the non-VC version but sharpness was not really an issue at all, except for maybe a little center softness at 50mm and 2.8 on both the VC's I looked at, while the Tokina seemed sharper in the center at 50mm and 2.8. Still, I highly doubt the non-VC would really be much sharper than the VC version overall.
So I'd really like to know how the VC really is suppose to work with video, if it requires holding the shutter down or not, and how I might test this and see the difference. Also if the focus ring just isn't good for manual focusing in shallow DoF? And what your general experience of the AF speed and accuracy really is like when shooting stills. I do a lot of street shooting and just don't know if this lens will get a lot of keepers, especially at night. Plus I don't think it would fair well for any kind of sports or fast action. Anybody have experience to differ on AF-C tracking and accuracy?
If price should be any consideration, here in my part of Asia the Tamron NON-VC is going for $423, while the VC version sells for $450 (yes, only $27 difference). The Tokina goes for $663. The Sigma 18-50 is $616.
Thanks for your time and your feedback,
Christian
I don't care for the Sigma 18-70mm f/2.8-4.0 because if I'm going to replace it with anything, its only worth it to get a fixed 2.8. I couldn't find a web page to verify this, but I'm assuming that Sigma doesn't stay 2.8 all the way to 50mm. As far as the Sigma 18-50, the cost on that lens is just under the cost of a Tokina 16-50, which I'd probably prefer at that price, unless enough people really praise it.
So it looks like I have to lose 20mm. I've already got enough dollars in glass spread elsewhere, so I think my choices are the Tammy 17-50 VC or non-VC 2.8, or the Tokina 16-50 f/2.8.
I would get the Tokina in a flash after testing it. But I have one other consideration that I just can't find much online to verify. And that is VC for video. Ive seen some vids online and it seems to work really well for video, which is honestly the only reason I'd consider the Tamron over the Tokina. But when I tested it in the store, the shop didn't know how to demo the VC for video, and I couldn't notice anything when shooting video.
With a D7K, I tried keeping the shutter half pressed while recording, although I've heard that VC automatically kicks in whenever its on and you go into Live View mode. For me I just couldn't tell a difference between it being on or off. And yet I could hear a little whispering sound while keeping the shutter down, which stopped when I released it, so I know it was engaged. This was the same for two different VC lenses I tried at two different stores. The VC wasn't loud as others claim, and I guess it worked because I was able to take a hand held shot at 1/10 that showed printed text clear and stable, but the whole VC experience was very subtle and nothing to pronounce that anything was really happening. I've also seen many reports of the "violent" VC action, shaking the frame initially, but I never saw that in either of the two 16-50 VC lenses that I tried. In shooting video, I just couldn't really see any difference at all in the hand held motion between it being on or off....so I was wondering how it is suppose to work in video mode?? And does it really make that much of a difference?
In general I really dislike Tamron lenses. I had one before and I felt so good to get rid of it. They all seem to be so loud and noisy, very slow to focus, cheaply made, and just kinda ugly. But I thought with all the positive reviews and the possibility of VC with video, I would try to like one. But there must be an incredible sample variety because many people have mixed experiences. Some say it is soft at 50mm 2.8, some are soft at 17mm. Some are slow to focus, some non-VC is sharper while some are equal, etc. etc. Always something different that's not consistent.
I tested two lenses at two different shops. The first one was not only very loud to focus, but also very slow. Not only slow but it hunted so much in low light. It would focus right beyond the mark, all the way to infinity and come back again, then finally settle out. I also found that even with decent indoor light it had the same terrible time focusing on anything that wasn't of a high contrast. It was a real lug of a snail's response. I just couldn't believe this would be acceptable to anybody. Is it really that slow and that prone to hunting in low light? Is that normal?
The 2nd copy didn't seem quite as loud, and though the focus did still move slow (I can see from watching the focus ring move), it still focused much faster than the first one because it didn't hunt quite so much, though it did sometimes still move past the mark and recycle back before locking, although the focus throw is so short to begin with that it shouldn't have much distance to manage.
But that's another concern. There's such a short distance from 7ft to infinity, does this lens mis-focus often? And doesn't that make it hard to manually focus, when you have a short 2.8 depth of field and shooting video? Or manually focusing on an eye for a portrait when shooting stills?
In comparison, the Tokina 16-50 has been around a long time and I think the early samples must have been improved upon, because it is dead sharp all over, including 2.8, really sweet and fast, silent AF that's very responsive and accurate, built possibly better than the Nikkor 17-55, and has a very comfortable manual focusing ring of good size and feel, long enough throw to work conveniently, plus includes the focus clutch mechanism to easily run in full time manual focus override and then flip back into AF without ever lifting your hand off the lens. I tested the Tokina against the Tamron at the same shop and evaluating the images on my PC, I think the Tokina was actually sharper at 50mm and 2.8. The only problem with the Tokina is some CA in high contrast areas tha is hard to get rid of, but only at 2.8 and mostly only against very bright high contrast edges. The Tokina also produces great looking soft bokeh, nicer than the Tamron from my short tests.
But the Tamron does have the VC, which I think I only care about if it works well for video, AND if the focus doesn't hunt too much for quick accuracy in street life, or in low light.
BTW I did not test the non-VC version but sharpness was not really an issue at all, except for maybe a little center softness at 50mm and 2.8 on both the VC's I looked at, while the Tokina seemed sharper in the center at 50mm and 2.8. Still, I highly doubt the non-VC would really be much sharper than the VC version overall.
So I'd really like to know how the VC really is suppose to work with video, if it requires holding the shutter down or not, and how I might test this and see the difference. Also if the focus ring just isn't good for manual focusing in shallow DoF? And what your general experience of the AF speed and accuracy really is like when shooting stills. I do a lot of street shooting and just don't know if this lens will get a lot of keepers, especially at night. Plus I don't think it would fair well for any kind of sports or fast action. Anybody have experience to differ on AF-C tracking and accuracy?
If price should be any consideration, here in my part of Asia the Tamron NON-VC is going for $423, while the VC version sells for $450 (yes, only $27 difference). The Tokina goes for $663. The Sigma 18-50 is $616.
Thanks for your time and your feedback,
Christian
0
Comments
Can anyone summarize how the AF works in this VC model....if you think its rather slow, poor in low light or difficult to track moving targets in continuous servo? And how the VC works or doesn't work in live view and video? I couldn't seem to confirm it was working or not in video at all, and focus seemed too slow for much action, especially in low light. Sharpness was not an issue.
For the fastest focus speed I'm afraid that I would recommend the Nikkor 17-55mm, f2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX. Yes, it's expensive, but I think it's worth it for the qualities it provides.
A new kid on the block is the Sigma 17-50mm, f2.8 EX DC OS HSM FLD. On paper this is an extremely impressive lens. Unfortunately there are not a lot of reviews and data for the lens. One of the better reviews for the lens notes unimpressive corner sharpness at 17-35mm when the aperture is wide open. Center and Edge performance are pretty good and I don't think that a video application would be too much affected.
If you do need faster focus (HSM) and stabilization (OS) the Sigma 17-50mm, f2.8 EX DC OS HSM FLD might be the way to go. Be sure to purchase from a place that has easy return/exchange privileges as I have found considerable sample variations in quality from Sigma lenses.
Here is the Sigma review (Canon mount):
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/531-sigma1750f28os
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Well, its funny you mention that Sigma. I was aware of Sigma but had read too much about sample variety, and honestly I never considered Sigma to be much outside the neighborhood of Tamron, so I just wasn't considering it. However earlier tonight I happened to see a box for this lens when I went out for more Tamron testing and get another look at the Tokina. I popped it on the D7K and was really surprised.
There are things I don't like about it, mainly that both the Sigma and Tamron do not allow full time manual focus override, and the focus throw is so short it won't be an easy smooth manual focus at all. However I was mainly interested in its OS ability. Without VC or OS, I'd definitely go for the Tokina. If anyone has this choice, please don't go by the (primarily older) Tokina 16-50 reviews, because its really an incredible lens and I'm sure its not the same that was reviewed years ago.
But anyway, it was a pleasure using the Sigma in the store, long enough that the salesman was getting irritated with me. I can say the build is not strong like Tokina or Nikon, but its much more professional feeling and more substantial than the Tamron. Weight is about the same as the non-VC Tamron.
The OS works GREAT, including in Live View and in video. The OS on this lens makes no sound I could hear, is very subtle when it takes affect, but can be easily witnessed in live view by zooming in on the LCD. It engages automatically with Live View activated. I shot several images at 1/15th hand held and printed text maintained clearly defined edges.
AF was very fast, and SILENT, thank God not a broken gear sound like the obnoxious Tamron. AF is quick enough that even when using Live View for full time auto-focus, I couldn't believe how quickly it would adjust and lock focus. Fast auto focus in Live View is not something I'm used to at all, so this impressed me and only confirmed more so that normal AF is pretty sweet on this newer Sigma. AF was not only fast but did not hunt in low light. I didn't put it in the dark, but focusing down into a pretty dark corner behind the counter of the shop, it locked focus as well as it did pointing anywhere else in the room. It also didn't seem to need as much contrast to lock focus as the silly Tamron did (which just hunted back and forth something awful under the same conditions).
So I will probably get the Sigma. I have pretty much confirmed how slow and prone to mistake the Tamron's focus can be. I've tested too many of them and they all behave more or less the same. Really, I want the Tokina most of all for its weather sealed mount, durable build, awesome bokeh (better than either Tammron or Sigma), very fast and accurate AF, and the smooth and easy to adjust full time manual override focusing ring. Tokina win pretty strong here (including sharpness even at 2.8 - forget the older reviews), but now I'm thinking about how well the OS works for handheld video. So you always have to give up something I guess.
I have only used these lenses in the store so far, but I've spent literally hours in several stores with multiple samples, because here you can't just return something after you buy it. Its not the West that's for sure, so you have to be really careful. I hope my observations and mini review can help someone else trying to make this choice.
Oh here is also another review on the Sigma
http://www.lenstip.com/256.1-Lens_review-Sigma_17-50_mm_f_2.8_EX_DC_OS_HSM_Introduction.html
I've had good luck with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non-vc) and for me the focusing is fast, I don't about how well it does with video though