02-18-2013, 01:09 PM
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1361147682' post='21987']
Results closely match Klaus' Canon review, so I reused most of the review text for this one. However, I went for 24-40-70mm (instead of 24-35-50-70mm) to maintain comparability with earlier Nikon FX reviews of 24-70mm lenses.
http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/789-tamron2470f28fx
-- Markus
[/quote]
Hi,
It seems to perform well,but I'm surprised that Tamron have not restyled the barrel a bit better,there's too much resemblance to the well known 17-50 2.8/ 28-75 2.8 budget lenses and that makes it look on the cheap side. Tamron are lagging behind Sigma in this department!
Dave's clichés
Results closely match Klaus' Canon review, so I reused most of the review text for this one. However, I went for 24-40-70mm (instead of 24-35-50-70mm) to maintain comparability with earlier Nikon FX reviews of 24-70mm lenses.
http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/789-tamron2470f28fx
-- Markus
[/quote]
Hi,
It seems to perform well,but I'm surprised that Tamron have not restyled the barrel a bit better,there's too much resemblance to the well known 17-50 2.8/ 28-75 2.8 budget lenses and that makes it look on the cheap side. Tamron are lagging behind Sigma in this department!
Dave's clichés