I've not seen a review that says it's crud Photozone for example gave it a pretty decent write up I think it's biggest weakness was the strength of it's predecesor if you look at it without considering the non-VC version it is a very good lens.
Tamron 17-50 vc vs non vc (again, sorry :( )
- Thread starter Alpherah
- Start date
I've not seen a review that says it's crud Photozone for example gave it a pretty decent write up I think it's biggest weakness was the strength of it's predecesor if you look at it without considering the non-VC version it is a very good lens.
When you get a good batch yeh
Neil we get it you had a bad lens, Tamron have known quality control issues that effect a tiny minority of the lenses they sell I guess it's the risk/compromise you have to take to get quality so cheaply.
Send the lens back get a new one and start enjoying taking pictures.
Well it arrived from the rainforest, got free express delivery through fathers account. whoop
Focus is miles off though, so its already on its way back for replacement. Fun times ahead.
Def wont be getting one of those then!
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 11,535
- Location
- Bucks
Well it arrived from the rainforest, got free express delivery through fathers account. whoop
Focus is miles off though, so its already on its way back for replacement. Fun times ahead.
did you do a focus test or were you pretty much in the mindset that it was going to be bad before it even arrived?
ie i dont call a couple hours testing (if that) enough and call user error.
Last edited:
Focus chart
don't have the pics anymore since i just dumped the card into my iPhoto lib and removed them.Focus was off enough to be corrected by micro adjustments if i had a D300s i would imagine, but D90 doesn't have the feature =/
-edit-
I should add i've asked for replacement, not refund, so its not in my interest to send it back 'just because'.
I HAVE! as i've said many a time, I'm just pointing out constantly i might add because some people seem to think this lens is the dogs balls and like me they get sucked into buying one and you're more likely to get a duff one than a good one.
^Well it arrived from the rainforest, got free express delivery through fathers account. whoop
Focus is miles off though, so its already on its way back for replacement. Fun times ahead.
Worst photography purchase i've ever made and all for reading up on the WOW you've got to get this lens posts from people. Nobody mentioned the flaws till i started complaining about mine and doing research.
Also the accusations of user error is annoying, not all of us have just picked up on photography
to be fair, it is the dogs ballsor was, just recently it seems 9/10 are dodgy copies.
9/10 seems about right...
Did yours have the same issue as mine?, soft photo's and completely soft/blurred bottom left hand corner?
Nope, just focus was off a fair bit. If i MF'd it was fine.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 2,566
do me a favour, show me your test shot and where the focus should be sharp
I would but as i already said, i deleted it. Anyway anyone had a return (of anything really) processed with the rainforest, how long does it take usually?
In a way, this is why I prefer second hand. I got mine from a member on TP, saw a load of test shots, was perfectly happy with the sharpness.
Plus, I went to collect and brought my camera along so I could test it out before handing the cash over. Oh, and it was 12 months old and £85 cheaper than new. And Tamron's have a 6 year warranty.
Plus, I went to collect and brought my camera along so I could test it out before handing the cash over. Oh, and it was 12 months old and £85 cheaper than new. And Tamron's have a 6 year warranty.
Can you please stop this Neil? I know your upset that your lens was a dud but to seriously believe that 9/10 of these lenses are similarly borked is plainly ridiculous. The number of happy users in this thread alone disporves that statistic.
While 9/10 is obviously a stupid figure I would be interested in the true amount.
What is interesting is the number of people that have to go through several copies to get a good one. This is what makes me believe the QC is fairly poor. If someone gets a single bad lens then they will report it online, if someone gets a good lens they wont report online, hence it makes an artificially high number of complaints. E.g. maybe only 1% are bad but given the sales figures that may eqate to a fair amount of complaints. However, if someone goes through 2 or 3 copies then this puts a worrying estimate on the number of failures, which must surely be higher than 1%. E.g., if someone goes through 2 to 3 copies then that is a 66-75% failure rate for them personally. These could be unlucky people (1 in 10,000 or 1 in 1 million for a run of 2 or 3 bad copies with a base failure rate of 1%) if many people experience the same then it is not bad luck but simply poor QC.
I also wonder how many people buy the lens without really checking for calibration or alignment issues and simply accept the performance of the lens? Being a budget lens means lots of inexperienced people will buy it and without knowing better will accept small amounts of softness or focus issues, especially if their technical skills are low anyway. People who lay down the cash for Nikon are probably fairly determined to get a good lens after paying all that money!