Wide angle lens issues (need help!)

Hi All,

First off, I'm a beginner (so please take it easy on me :) ) but I'm fortunate enough to have some pretty decent equipment.

I'm attaching two photos. Both taken with a D200. One is taken with a Tamron 20-40mm, 2.7-3.5 lens. The second taken with a Nikon 35-70mm, constant 2.8 lens.

While I'm very happy with photos I take with the Nikkon, I much less happy with those I take with the Tamron. Pictures with the Tamron lens just look washed out without sufficient contrast as you'll easily be able to tell from the attached. Is this just a function of the lens or the lens/camera combo or am I just doing something wrong?

Any help would be much appreciated. I basically need a wide-angle that performs as well as my 35-70.

Thanks much!
ram5

DSC_0053_2.jpg
Tamron
shutter: 1/640
f3.3
34mm

DSC_0054_2.jpg
Nikon
shutter: 1/1500
f2.8
35mm

It is not a matter of contrast, but rather colour temperature. The top shot is warmer with whites that are more toward a light yellow and blacks that are more toward a grey/green.
The bottom shot is cooler with better blues, accurate whites and blacker blacks.

Colour balance can easily be adjusted in postprocessing to make them look identical.

Ronnoco

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ram5

DSC_0053_2.jpg
Tamron
shutter: 1/640
f3.3
34mm

DSC_0054_2.jpg
Nikon
shutter: 1/1500
f2.8
35mm

---

Your exposure data is a little different here. If you shot both at f2.8 (I know you can't with the Tamron, just for purposes of explaination) then your shutter speed would have been about 1/1000 or 1/1250. I can't remember all the 1/3 and 1/2 stops off the top of my head... The Nikon lens had a 1/1500 so it's slightly less exposed than the Tamron shot. If this is happening most of the time, then the Tamron is either slightly overexposing your shots - or the Nikon is slightly underexposing your shots. Overexposure can lead to washed out and blown out areas in your shot.

I know that camera bodies can have this much (or more) difference and still be considered "in spec" by manufacturers so I don't think there's really an equipment problem here. FWIW, I've been happy with my Sigma 10-20mm and the Nikon 12-24 is slightly better (and twice the cost). I usually set my camera up with the least saturated color, lowest contrast and no sharpening. This gives me more options later for getting the final image I want with the help of Photoshop. With a Nikon DSLR, this would be using .NEF files with either Photoshop CS2 or Nikon Capture.

Thanks all. Sounds like it's probably a combination of color temp and exposure. I actually played around with different exposure settings on my Tamron and, while I can improve things marginally, I'm still not happy with my pictures. With post-processing, I was able to significantly enhance the picture to my taste but I'm not so keen on the idea of having to post-process all of my photos!

just something to consider....I never post a photo that hasn't been post-processed, and other photographers almost never do as well.

Same here. I shoot everything (usually, these days) in RAW which of course requires post processing. I'm getting the best results by doing this but the downside is that it does take more time.