03-14-2011, 04:01 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2011, 04:02 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1300117270' post='6762']
Whatever... OK then if your *experience* is contrary to slrgear.com findings.
[/quote]
Look up the findings of slrgear for the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. Especially their CA findings. Compare that with actual Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 images. Compare that with findings of other measurement reviews.
Strange, that I trust my eyes more than what SLRgear puts into graphs. You should trust your eyes too, I am quite impressed with what the 28-300mm shows, IQ wise.
Whatever... OK then if your *experience* is contrary to slrgear.com findings.
[/quote]
Look up the findings of slrgear for the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. Especially their CA findings. Compare that with actual Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 images. Compare that with findings of other measurement reviews.
Strange, that I trust my eyes more than what SLRgear puts into graphs. You should trust your eyes too, I am quite impressed with what the 28-300mm shows, IQ wise.