was the lens on full wide on the second picture? the barrel distortion seems to be worse on it compared to the first picture even though they seem to be taking the same shot.
i find the tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 really interesting as it's only about 1/3 the cost of the nikon 17-55mm f/2.8. does anyone here have experience with both? i was saving up for the nikon but if the tamron is almost as good, it's another $800 that i could spend elsewhere.
the first picture is at 29mm, and the second is at 24mm. So yeah, the second picture would have a little more distortion but it is imho acceptable.
I took a look and I don't notice a difference. Perhaps I'm simply not as fussy as some or perhaps that size of photo reproduced on a computer screen doesn't have the ability to show the entire story. But since the guy's saying essentially everything I've been saying, I think he's a rational, logical, intelligent person, and agree with him completely.
__________________
I wondered why the golf ball was getting bigger. Then it hit me.
Who has experience with 50mm primes? I've ordered a 50mm f1.4 AF.
I've owned a couple; one AIS and one AF version. Both were excellent, although I learned to shoot wide open only when I had to. The 50 f/1.4 has become a real quality cornerstone to the Nikon line, even with amateurs getting slow zooms over higher quality primes. You'll get very low distortion, excellent color and resolution.
I'm home now, just checked the website, and I couldn't see any difference at all either.
Can't really conclude anything yet; maybe it doesn't show up at much at higher aperture, or maybe won't show that much when shooting directly into light, or maybe the scratches on my filter, etc...
But I'm too tired to do any tests now, but the next time I'm doing it, I won't label them and see if the difference is noticeable or not.
But I'm not gonna fuss over this too much now; filter or no filter, it's only minute difference.
Linear Mode
