Monthly Archives: January 2010

Oriental

Posted on by
Reply

Dames Point, originally uploaded by ernestkoe.

As a Nikon owner and Leica wishful-owner, I read Ken Rockwell’s blog to stay up on the world of cameras through Ken’s eyes. Mostly, it is just entertaining; his humor is an odd blend of self-conscious awkwardness and sometimes sardonic charm.

Beyond the technical reviews it is hard to take Ken too seriously. His blog is really one big chuckle. The man who rants against photographers’ preoccupation with “gear” is himself hopelessly seduced by the five-figure Leica M9 kit. Good for him, I say.

My issue with Ken, however, is not this predilection for hyperbolic sarcasm that he confuses for humor. My (little) beef is that he is sometimes careless with history and language.

In particular, he is fond of the word “Oriental,” http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/oriental.htm.

Now, this isn’t generally considered offensive by everyone in this world and I wouldn’t take umbrage with his usage except that he uses it in exactly the way that suggests a fundamental and deep ignorance of what he is saying. He writes:

“The Orient includes countries and regions like Japan, China, Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan.”

Um, actually, The Orient, as it has traditionally been used, is a conflation of everything non-European. It isn’t just countries or regions “like” Japan, China, and Korea as if it would be justified if we could surgically limit the definition to those places to begin with. And what do you mean regions LIKE these? Is Thailand LIKE Japan or China? Is Malaysia like Korea?

“Since much Oriental photo gear now comes from several Oriental countries, it’s far more precise to say Oriental rather than trying to delineate Japanese or Chinese.”

So, there is nothing precise at all about this; but this is a straw man argument anyway. It may be far more convenient for Ken but it is definitely much less precise. We don’t need to invent words to say things like “The Nikon D40 is made in Thailand.”

It is one thing if you use “Oriental” in the same way we use the term “Western”, sloppy as it may be. We can just chalk that up to ignorance which is forgivable. But it is another thing to claim real understanding and be wrong about it. Categorically redefining the Oriental to mean “East Asian” (a very nice unloaded term) is a neat trick to get around the criticisms, but why not just use “East Asian.”

To be clear, my issue with him about the word “Oriental” lies LESS with the use of the term itself than with the explanation he provides which strikes me as utterly illogical.

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC Review

Posted on by
Reply


Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC Review, originally uploaded by ernestkoe.

For a technical review of this lens, I’d encourage you to check out the numerous postings found by googling for "Tamron 17-50mm VC".

Here’s a not-so-technical one I liked, lemon.soju.co.uk/tamron-f2-8-vc/
and a more technical one: www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-…

I returned the Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 SP XR Di II VC which I initially purchased from my local Ritz store.

One of the nice things about buying things from Ritz is that returns are relatively painless. Although I don’t make a habit of doing so, I much rather return stuff in person than by any RMA process.

I picked up the Tamron because it seemed like such a tempting alternative to the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G. With its fixed f/2.8 max aperture and VC in one package, the Tamron stood a good chance of becoming my all-around, any available light, walkabout lens.

Here’s what I found.

Utility
"Great for people, street photography, and in tight quarters."

Because I take a lot of closeup street and indoor photos of my family, the 17-50mm (25.5-75mm FF equivalent) range turnes out to be rather useful. It is worth noting that Thom Hogan doesn’t care much for this range, but if this were the only standard lens in my kit, I’d have no problems keeping the lens on the camera most of the time.

For snapshots and people photography, I find that the standard zoom range on this puppy is nearly perfect. The long end could be a little longer but you get a comfortable working distance particularly in tight quarters. The 17mm end gives you a nice (if somewhat ho-hum) practical standard wide angle coverage.

Performance
"Decent optics, but boorish manners."

Optically speaking, this was a fine lens. Some have complained it isn’t as sharp as the original Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 but I found it to be pretty sharp all along the zoom and aperture range.

Now, I am not an authority on this stuff and I don’t spend a lot of time turning over each pixel, so, your mileage may vary. For actual technical numbers, see some of the reviews I mentioned.

But, check out the various text elements in the photo above. Handheld, winter evening, f/2.8 ISO 400(!) at shutter of 1/60 sec with VC on. That’s pretty cool for an unsteady shot in near-darkness.

Usability

"Meh."

While not heavy, the Tamron has noticeable ‘heft’. In fact, it weighs slightly more than the Nikkor 18-200mm VR I/II! The overall finish feels good (not cheapo). One minor point of annoyance, the bayonet mount and lens hood feel squishy.

On a more significant note, I found the VC mechanism somewhat distracting. It makes a glass-clinking noise and shudders perceptibly when engaged. As a fan of the whisper quiet Nikkor AF-S ‘silentwave’ system, the Tamron VC sounded and felt a bit…uncivilized. All this is a bit alarming until you get used to it; that is if you aren’t a little embarrassed first.

To be fair, the VC mechanism does work surprisingly well. I probably gained a stop or two with VC turned on. Also, I found the autofocus to be competent, not terribly fast and a bit loud, but probably as good as the excellent Nikon 18-55mm DX VR kit lens that this would have replaced.

These annoyances alone are probably not enough to be considered serious flaws.

Nonetheless, I didn’t keep it.

The17-50mm zoom range is useful particularly if you need a fast lens with a standard working range. However, I already own the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX which is practically glued to my Nikon D90 most of the time. After weighing my usage of both lenses, I decided I didn’t gain much more over the Nikkor 35mm prime. For most of the Tamron’s working zoom range, I think the 35mm is simpler, at least a stop faster, much lighter, and takes slightly better pictures.

Paying $600 plus dollars for an additional 25% functionality seemed extravagant.

Yes, the 17mm wide end is nice but I already have the Nikkor 18-55mm VR kit lens that is as good if not better at the wide end. And that dinky thing only costs about $180 street.

The final straw for me was the realization that I needed new 72mm filters for the Tamron and I don’t have anything else in my collection with a 72mm filter thread.

Recommendation
So, for about $625 street, it’s definitely a great mix of ‘speed’ and value if you need the convenience of a standard zoom. By comparison, the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G is about $1400 without VR (Vibration Reduction). Granted, the Nikkor is purportedly better built, better designed and comes highly recommended by the serious reviewers, but if you are like me, $1400 is pretty serious coin.

If you are easily annoyed, skip the Tamron, otherwise get one or the earlier non-VC version, and pocket the difference or put the rest towards something cool, like a good tripod or a prime lens.