Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8

[barq]

Nice pics, barq. Did you use an ND filter on the last one? Great flare control, something the Canon 17-55 is often bashed for.

Thanks. no i did not use any ND filter. Just a cheap UV filter. Yes the lens handels flare pretty good.. I was abit suprised by this..

[CaptainTonus]

This is such a rad little lens, seriously.

http://home.tiora.net/tony/Yoshi/IMG_7292small.jpg

http://home.tiora.net/tony/Monterey/IMG_6919_1small.jpg

[emu248mafia]

This is such a rad little lens, seriously.

http://home.tiora.net/tony/Yoshi/IMG_7292small.jpg

http://home.tiora.net/tony/Monterey/IMG_6919_1small.jpg

what in the world is in the water?

[CaptainTonus]

what in the world is in the water?

Night divers. ;-)

[emu248mafia]

Night divers. ;-)

Ah i see it now, sorta ha, nice pics

[ride5000]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3420/3758005544_7a658761dc.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ken-gilbert/3758005544/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3554/3766252498_243f19a3f6.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ken-gilbert/3766252498/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3454/3762506730_854792be24.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ken-gilbert/3762506730/)

[garycoleman]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3572/3779342467_dbbb1aedb0_b.jpg

[kloodee]

guys comparing this lens to the Canon EF-s 17-55 f2.8, for the price you pay which one is a better deal?? i mean come on the canon is like 1000$ and this one is less than half the price, saying that you should expect a big IQ gap in between, is it the case ??
from the posted pic's i could say the tamron sometimes is even sharper than the canon but it's still uploaded pic's and probably been through PP
im asking because i can afford the canon but i was thinking to save some money for another lens or flash...

[CaptainTonus]

guys comparing this lens to the Canon EF-s 17-55 f2.8, for the price you pay which one is a better deal?? i mean come on the canon is like 1000$ and this one is less than half the price, saying that you should expect a big IQ gap in between, is it the case ??
from the posted pic's i could say the tamron sometimes is even sharper than the canon but it's still uploaded pic's and probably been through PP
im asking because i can afford the canon but i was thinking to save some money for another lens or flash...

I've used both lenses. I'm not going to say one is better than the other, but I will tell you that it's NOT worth the extra $600 to go for the Canon version. Having IS on a walkaround lens with a constant 2.8 aperture is really not that useful, and the IQ difference is nothing to write home about.

[JokerGirl]

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s110/JokerGirlsPhotos/IMG_7040-2.jpg

[blssdwlf]

guys comparing this lens to the Canon EF-s 17-55 f2.8, for the price you pay which one is a better deal?? i mean come on the canon is like 1000$ and this one is less than half the price, saying that you should expect a big IQ gap in between, is it the case ??
from the posted pic's i could say the tamron sometimes is even sharper than the canon but it's still uploaded pic's and probably been through PP
im asking because i can afford the canon but i was thinking to save some money for another lens or flash...

The IQ gap is minimal. The extra $500 for the Canon is for the IS and FTM USM. If you feel that you can live without IS and/or USM in that focal range, then the Tamron is a great lens. Otherwise, the Canon is the only lens with IS, FTM USM and constant f/2.8 in that focal range.

[kloodee]

thanx guys, i'll just go with the tamron and post some shots when i get it :)

appreciate all help

[k4show]

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s110/JokerGirlsPhotos/IMG_7040-2.jpg

That leash looks like the dog has a 20ft tail! LOL

[SamHunter]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2625/3785827177_ca20d9f4ab_o.jpg

[gte357s]

guys comparing this lens to the Canon EF-s 17-55 f2.8, for the price you pay which one is a better deal?? i mean come on the canon is like 1000$ and this one is less than half the price, saying that you should expect a big IQ gap in between, is it the case ??
from the posted pic's i could say the tamron sometimes is even sharper than the canon but it's still uploaded pic's and probably been through PP
im asking because i can afford the canon but i was thinking to save some money for another lens or flash...

The Canon is sharper at corners and sides at all focal length. Tamron is sharper in the center from 17-35, but it becomes softer than Canon at 50mm. Also, Tamron doesn't have USM and IS. IS can be useful in some situations. But is it worth $600 more, I don't think so. I would rather use it to buy another lens, like a macro or telephoto. That allows me to take more pictures in different situations. For $600 more, I expect sharper image everywhere at all range and F stop, and L level build quality.

[CaptainTonus]

Big Sur, central california

http://home.tiora.net/tony/Monterey/IMG_7003small.jpg

http://home.tiora.net/tony/Monterey/IMG_7026small.jpg

[jdlloyd67]

Big Sur, central california

http://home.tiora.net/tony/Monterey/IMG_7003small.jpg

http://home.tiora.net/tony/Monterey/IMG_7026small.jpg
Wow! Both of these are fantastic!!!

[CaptainTonus]

Thanks! I wish the conditions had been better. Darn fog.

[joemusic321]

Both very nice - and I wouldn't curse the fog. It helps differentiate these from the "norm".

[jdlloyd67]

Both very nice - and I wouldn't curse the fog. It helps differentiate these from the "norm".
I agree!!!

[spitfirejd]

Must... buy... lens... :p

[leeroy985]

So I sold my 24-105 f4 to free up some funds and went ahead and purchased the Tamron 17-50 2.8 . Dude this lens does not dissappoint. This bad boy is the best $400 I have spent on a lens. Here are two quick shots of my two kids.

http://www.therogersfamily.cc/ava.jpg
http://www.therogersfamily.cc/ben.jpg

[TheHunter]

I went ahead and picked up this lens because of this thread, and it is GREAT! Used it around Disneyworld all day today, and the f 2.8 helps so much over the kit lens 3.5!

[shania176]

So I sold my 24-105 f4 to free up some
How do you feel that the Canon 24-105 4L IS compare to Tamron opticswise?

[leeroy985]

Optics wise I think they are very close in sharpness. I feel the Canon has slighty cleaner bokeh. The main things I miss with Canon is the focus speed, usm and the extra range. Would I buy the 24-105 again? In a hearbeat.




How do you feel that the Canon 24-105 4L IS compare to Tamron opticswise?

[lunasicc]

this lens is pretty dam sharp for what you pay..i like it alot and the 17mm is day and night difference from my old 28-135..
http://i873.photobucket.com/albums/ab297/ebkallday/IMG_8024.jpg
http://i873.photobucket.com/albums/ab297/ebkallday/17-5012.jpg

[Chris215]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2525/3801772460_22c5e193d6.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3542/3801771868_a0b260dedc.jpg

[ride5000]

both wide open:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2651/3800919898_bdf8f2a269.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ken-gilbert/3800919898/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3549/3804995985_a2f2400183.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ken-gilbert/3804995985/)

[yogestee]

Storm clouds over That Luang..

[zelseman]

Right after I bought this lens:
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l226/zelseman/_MG_8994.jpg

and almost a 100% crop:
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l226/zelseman/_MG_8994crop.jpg

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l226/zelseman/_MG_9018.jpg(Ignore the watermark; college lesson on watermarking)

And a few more recent:
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l226/zelseman/IMG_2215.jpg

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l226/zelseman/IMG_2242.jpg

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l226/zelseman/IMG_2249.jpg

[Ian71]

Bought this lens yesterday and my first impression is:

1. Built is acceptable but as the other post might suggest it is a bit lower quality if you compare it to CANON OEM lens at the same category.
2. IQ, hmm, got some shots but I was not satisfied with the results. My Canon Ef 28-135 IS is more crisp than this lens but maybe I need to do more test..
3. Low light with small movements like shooting a baby moving in a crib under a normal flourescent lamp: I still need a flash, even with 2.8 with a small movement, still getting a blur in the moving area.
4. Color: as i am conparing the IQ with with canon 28-135. I can say at this moment that my CANON is still better but maybe after few more shots I would be able to get a good IQ from this lens.
5. at 50mm compare to my NIFTY FIFTY, my Nifty Fifty can produced a very nice & crisp IQ @ 2.8

But this is me and I am still testing my copy of this lens maybe after a few shots I will learn to love this lens as the many positive post & review I read on the WEB. The reason why I choose this lens over the CANON 17-55 is the Price and as per the review the IQ is comparable. It is the USM & the IS is what you are paying for the extra 600$.

Can't wait to get home to do more test shots..

[ride5000]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2548/3820747994_ef19392194_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ken-gilbert/3820747994/)

[blssdwlf]

If you are still seeing movement with a baby in a crib with a flash, you will need to bump up your shutterspeed and try different settings. It is not the lens. You're most likely still in Aperture or Program mode. Try Manual, F/2.8-5.6 1/160s ISO200-400 and see if that removes the motion of the baby (unless his or her limbs are flailing around!)

Your 50mm is a prime lens and stopped down to f/2.8 should be as sharp or sharper than the 17-50 wide open at f/2.8. The 17-50 wide open at f/2.8 should be as sharp or sharper than your 50mm prime when wide open at f/1.8. Typically a prime will have a sharpness advantage over a zoom.

Keep in mind that to bump up your shutterspeed at f/2.8 you might have to bump up your ISO. The higher the ISO, the less sharp your photo will be due to noise compared to an ISO 100 photo. It is a trade off.

Try taking some shots with good light on a tripod or with proper use of your Sigma flash and see how the 17-50 does. Switching over from a slower (aperture) and IS lens can take a little getting use to. You'll be shooting in situations where your IS helped out on or where you didn't try often because you didn't have a f/2.8 zoom. I used my 50mm f/1.8 for 6 months before adding the 17-50 f/2.8 and it still took some adjustment to use.

I hope you are able to get use to your new lens and post some pics :)

Bought this lens yesterday and my first impression is:

1. Built is acceptable but as the other post might suggest it is a bit lower quality if you compare it to CANON OEM lens at the same category.
2. IQ, hmm, got some shots but I was not satisfied with the results. My Canon Ef 28-135 IS is more crisp than this lens but maybe I need to do more test..
3. Low light with small movements like shooting a baby moving in a crib under a normal flourescent lamp: I still need a flash, even with 2.8 with a small movement, still getting a blur in the moving area.
4. Color: as i am conparing the IQ with with canon 28-135. I can say at this moment that my CANON is still better but maybe after few more shots I would be able to get a good IQ from this lens.
5. at 50mm compare to my NIFTY FIFTY, my Nifty Fifty can produced a very nice & crisp IQ @ 2.8

But this is me and I am still testing my copy of this lens maybe after a few shots I will learn to love this lens as the many positive post & review I read on the WEB. The reason why I choose this lens over the CANON 17-55 is the Price and as per the review the IQ is comparable. It is the USM & the IS is what you are paying for the extra 600$.

Can't wait to get home to do more test shots..

[Ian71]

thanks Peter, for the comment. I am using manual mode with ISO1600 the highest i can get from my XSI and Shutter speed of 10 15 & 20 and I also tried shooting at AV mode as well but maybe the problem was from me. I tried comparing it with my canon 50mm handheld with a baby slightly moving on a crib. Light situation is normal room lighting, using manual mode. i am using the meter on the camera to make sure that I am on a normal level. I am adjusting my shutter speed in reference to my meter reading.

Results: using available light

canon 50mm very sharp at ISO 1600 and shutter speed 20 @F2.8 in Manual Mode
Tammy 17-50 ISO 1600 shutter speed 20, 15, 10, 30 @ F2.8 out put is a bit grainy @ any focal point

I tried my tammy with a flash and get a good result comparable with my canon 50MM and Canon 28-135 IQ. As I read on the review this tammy IQ should be equal or comparable with prime 50mm ( I understand prime are more sharper than zoom ) but with my 28-135, I can still see that my 28-135 gives me a better IQ, color and contrast. But again maybe I am the contributing factor. I need to test more of my tammy.

tried shooting droplets of water using a wireless flash @F8 ISO 200 shutter speed of 180 to 200 the max sunc speed I can get using a wirelss trigger:

Canon 28-135 IQ is better than my tammy. but then again i will continue testing and keep on shooting until i will hit the sweat spot of my tammy. Tammy AF sometime is a bit off and my 28-135 is more accurate.

Need to test more. i will post some of my shots later..


thanks..

[onespot]

Here is a image straight out the camera 100% crop

[onespot]

Here is the full version, resized and slightly PP'd

[silkylead]

Dumb question, I suppose, but how much better is this lens than the 18-55 IS stock lens that came with my Canon Xsi? I have NEVER used that lens. And if better, why? just the 2.8 factor, or the image quality?

[CaptainTonus]

Dumb question, I suppose, but how much better is this lens than the 18-55 IS stock lens that came with my Canon Xsi? I have NEVER used that lens. And if better, why? just the 2.8 factor, or the image quality?

You can't even compare it to the kit lens. Way better optics, constant 2.8 aperture, and I would argue faster focusing. The 2.8 aperture is the most noticeable difference though.

[ride5000]

it ****s all over the kit lens.

[onurrus]

Tamron 17-50 is much better than the kit lense like 18-55 and 17-85 to me but I agree with lan71 about the color/contrass is better at 28-135mm..optical quality and the mtf charts is not my priority and I am somwhow regret I bought that one over the 28-135 wlthough the 17mm wideness..

[Ian71]

Tamron 17-50 is much better than the kit lense like 18-55 and 17-85 to me but I agree with lan71 about the color/contrass is better at 28-135mm..optical quality and the mtf charts is not my priority and I am somwhow regret I bought that one over the 28-135 wlthough the 17mm wideness..


+1 for 28-135..:D

[ride5000]

wide open:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3460/3854401658_f052ce0312_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ken-gilbert/3854401658/)

[blssdwlf]

Depends on your needs and skills I suppose.

If you have shaky hands, or shoot static scenes in low-light without a tripod, then you want IS.

If you are pretty steady and need as much shutter speed as you can for moving subjects and want to keep the flexibility of a zoom, then you want constant f/2.8 or better.

If you've got $500-600 extra in cash, you could get both in the Canon 17-55IS f/2.8 or if you had to pick, you could go with either the IS Kit or the Tamron/Sigma f/2.8s.

Interestingly there is another similar question here about the IS Kit and the 17-55IS...
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=743776

Dumb question, I suppose, but how much better is this lens than the 18-55 IS stock lens that came with my Canon Xsi? I have NEVER used that lens. And if better, why? just the 2.8 factor, or the image quality?

[David83]

canon 50D

shot handheld...actually i was lying on my stomach resting wieght on my elbows so it was pretty steady

47mm , ISO 800 , F 4 , 1/13

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2565/3849773866_3f8c2d2e41_o.jpg


17mm ,ISO 200, f 5.6 ,1 on the tri-pod

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2664/3850409245_00d3bcd05b_o.jpg

[zelseman]

Im not a fan of mustangs, but that is impressive feat to take that shot at 1/13.
Good hands.

[KayakPhotos]

Nice ride! Looks like a 99-01 due to the cowl hood.

canon 50D

shot handheld...actually i was lying on my stomach resting wieght on my elbows so it was pretty steady

47mm , ISO 800 , F 4 , 1/13

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2565/3849773866_3f8c2d2e41_o.jpg

[David83]

Nice ride! Looks like a 99-01 due to the cowl hood.


thanks:D its an 03:cool:

[KayakPhotos]

thanks:D its an 03:cool:

Even better! I'll probably buy one someday. I have an '03 GT, but you're in a different league...

[silkylead]

Yea, and I know what city you were in too! ... I'm from Illinois myself. Yea, great shots. Bought the nifty 50 for now, .. may get the 17-50 next. If bucks allow. Thanks for the input.

[cbacarella]

This might come as a shock to some of you (or maybe not) but im actually just bought this lens and put my 17-40L up for sale.....hahaha

Reasons: The price difference. I can sell the L for $600 and bought one of these for around $300. Im using that extra money to pick up pocket wizards!


From what i can tell with this thread the IQ is pretty similar. Im not too worried about build quality...and for photojournalism work the f/2.8 works lots better than f/4 when your in a sticky not well light situation!

Ill post pics when i recieve it!

.Chris.

[lunasicc]

NO SHARPENING!
this lens is crazy sharp!lol
http://i873.photobucket.com/albums/ab297/ebkallday/IMG_0058kk.jpg

this one has very little sharpening
http://i873.photobucket.com/albums/ab297/ebkallday/krkv4.jpg

[ckort]

I'm kinda torn between this lens and the 17-40L, but I gotta be honest, I like the Tammy better. I've looked through the sample photos of the 17-40 and I think the Tammy has more pop. It could be the editing or the photographer, but to me the 17-40 don't seem quite as sharp in many cases. Am I wrong?

[silkylead]

I assume you are asking me, .. but I bought the 50mm for now. But, when cash allows, the Tamron 17-50 gets very positive reviews from users. Some wish it had VC as they call it. But the price would be a lot more. In looking at your gear list, I see we have a lot of the same type of stuff. I'm in Galesburg, btw

[David83]

I'm kinda torn between this lens and the 17-40L, but I gotta be honest, I like the Tammy better. I've looked through the sample photos of the 17-40 and I think the Tammy has more pop. It could be the editing or the photographer, but to me the 17-40 don't seem quite as sharp in many cases. Am I wrong?

i was in the same boat and the little extra reach and the constant f2.8 sold me on the tamron

but i admit i got lucky and got a very sharp one wide open and it also focuses spot on. and it has yet to miss focus at about 500 shots so far

on my 50 D it will focus on a black car at 3am and has focused fast without hunting on other objects ;) in almost total darkness.

i am very impressed with its performance per dollar

but im sure i just shot myself in the foot with that statement:oops:

[Dyaus]

Here's a recent one @ 19mm

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2652/3884330803_9d1780f9d9.jpg

[JoePhotoOnline]

Straight out of camera, no PP done except a resize.

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/1983/img9380.jpg

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/5232/100pg.jpg

[JoePhotoOnline]

i was in the same boat and the little extra reach and the constant f2.8 sold me on the tamron

but i admit i got lucky and got a very sharp one wide open and it also focuses spot on. and it has yet to miss focus at about 500 shots so far

on my 50 D it will focus on a black car at 3am and has focused fast without hunting on other objects ;) in almost total darkness.

i am very impressed with its performance per dollar

but im sure i just shot myself in the foot with that statement:oops:

I guess I got lucky too. I LOVE mine. It focus's dead on, and it is very sharp at 2.8


50mm, 2.8:

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/2889/img9384o.jpg

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/3174/100pp.jpg

[ckort]

I assume you are asking me, .. but I bought the 50mm for now. But, when cash allows, the Tamron 17-50 gets very positive reviews from users. Some wish it had VC as they call it. But the price would be a lot more. In looking at your gear list, I see we have a lot of the same type of stuff. I'm in Galesburg, btw

I wasn't really asking anyone in particular, maybe just looking for a nudge ;). It's just that there is so much hype about the 17-40L, and I'm just not seeing the results. I have seen some very sharp photos from this lens, but not that many. Then I sift through this thread and 80% are tack sharp! And I too love that it's a constant 2.8. Would be nice to have VC, but I can deal with it. With that said, I'll probably end up with the Tamron, hopefully in a few weeks.

[kja]

What do you think of this lens' ability to focus in very low light/low contrast situations? Is it fast? Does it hunt much?

[lunasicc]

oof^^

[KayakPhotos]

oof^^

Mostly a problem of photobucket compression...

[KayakPhotos]

One from my first outing with the lens.

[spitfirejd]

I just picked up a mint, used copy for a song and here are a few pics from my first day of wandering about with it.

Victorian House in Downtown Hampton, VA
http://spitfirejd.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p93547594-4.jpg

Coastal Artillery Battery, Ft. Monroe
http://spitfirejd.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p55852334-4.jpg

Old Point Comfort Lighthouse
http://spitfirejd.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p394888046-4.jpg

http://spitfirejd.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p942761161-4.jpg

Old Point Comfort Marina
http://spitfirejd.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p1028973353-4.jpg

I'm loving it so far!

[David83]

this is my favorite lens. a few from last night out with some buddys at our favorite photo spot

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2589/3894164126_b65be053a8_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3464/3891359341_28d4b77b67_o.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2429/3892170854_855ddbed68_b.jpg

[huyness]

the academy of science in san francisco has a pretty cool rainforest with several months and humingbirds

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2652/3892196730_976f5c1fa9_b.jpg

1/100, f/2.8, ISO 200

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3027/3892195938_e416a2809d_b.jpg

1/80, f/2.8 ISO 200

[onespot]

this is my favorite lens. a few from last night out with some buddys at our favorite photo spot

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2589/3894164126_b65be053a8_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3464/3891359341_28d4b77b67_o.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2429/3892170854_855ddbed68_b.jpgDavid83, just wondering where was that first photo taken

[David83]

David83, just wondering where was that first photo taken

behind Whole Foods on Canal st:D

[onespot]

Two from the other day.

[cbacarella]

Sold my 17-40L and bought this.... Im lov'n it!


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2604/3897099209_7ff1cd7466.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2541/3897858138_11b030fa34.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2559/3897823818_cda71f80b9.jpg

[trumpet_guy]

From this past Sunday. Point Reyes National Seashore.

http://tswen.smugmug.com/photos/642875462_5vS8L-L.jpg


http://tswen.smugmug.com/photos/642878606_ewpFY-L.jpg

[[Hyuni]]

Sold my 17-40L and bought this.... Im lov'n it!




http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2541/3897858138_11b030fa34.jpg


WOW.
This photo is more like a story
AWESOME AWESOME capture!

[cbacarella]

;8617950']WOW.
This photo is more like a story
AWESOME AWESOME capture!


Thanks you!

Here is the caption to go with it if anyone cares...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2541/3897858138_11b030fa34.jpg
Chelsea, MI, resident Lance Hammer dives off the Grand Haven Pier, Grand Haven Michigan, September 6th 2009 to cool down from the hot end of summer day. Grand Haven Pier marks the entrance into the Grand River and is also host to the Grand Haven Lighthouse built in 1906. A ban imposed by the city makes pier diving illegal but with hot sun and cold water, residents push their luck with the ban all summer long.

[ride5000]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3450/3909459694_53e74e8636.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ken-gilbert/3909459694/)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2659/3895957745_d911aa6259.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ken-gilbert/3895957745/)

[Daniel2000]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3450/3909459694_53e74e8636.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ken-gilbert/3909459694/)




OMG! soo cute! :D

[fr0natz]

Heres a pic a friend took with my camera. It has been over saturated and sharpened slightly, but you can still tell how amazingly sharp this lens is.
http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/1892/rockystree.jpg

Original: http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/1892/rockystree.jpg

Oh, and its the "Promaster" version. Which I got for $300 brand spankin' new :)

[spiiz]

Here's a stitch of 5 images taken with this wonderful lens of the Hong Kong Skyline past midnight!

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2545/3913410778_7dd45bd396_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/spiiz/3913410778/)

Check out the bigger size on my Flickr by clicking on the pic or the bigger panoramic version on my blog at http://roberttea.com/projects/hong_kong_night_view_panorama/ (sorry for the flash compression)

[cbacarella]

Awesome pictures!!^^^^^^^



Something simple out of my gf's window...


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2671/3918283265_81b4b16025.jpg

[fr0natz]

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/8725/flowax.jpg
Generic flower picture taken during my school lunch break. It actually didnt do too shabby, not at all.

[Emergenic]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3439/3912975157_f708599b32_b.jpg

[bigrig]

36 mm
F/2.8
1/1600
ISO400
http://images39.fotki.com/v1293/photos/4/401442/6703156/IMG_1709B-vi.jpg

50 mm
F/2.8
1/400
ISO100
http://images45.fotki.com/v1429/photos/2/401442/7850897/IMG_5645B1-vi.jpg

[binlerne]

I don't remember if I ever posted this one here. Taken last August...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3519/3777514312_e6d37b4324.jpg

[yogestee]

A couple from the other day..

50D/Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8

[cbacarella]

Pics of some buildings in Mount Pleasant MI. There are multiple buildings on this site with one being an old insane asylum, one a gym, one a school house..and one just a random office type building. There is also a 'newer' insane institute that is behind these old buildings...

The newer building was shut down Feb. of this year.

Pics:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2609/3879772191_4dbaec8065.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2565/3879773293_2af305c5e2.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3477/3879773047_b440c91fb2.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2436/3879771187_9756dbb6f8.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2675/3879771061_5f2c16ea39.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2458/3879771485_7a90f5a10e.jpg





.Chris.

[Zillon]

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d140/zillon3/Photography/Studio/tori-091609-01.jpg

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d140/zillon3/Photography/Studio/sm-091609-01.jpg

[KayakPhotos]

Nice lighting!



http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d140/zillon3/Photography/Studio/sm-091609-01.jpg

[Zillon]

Thanks, just started playing with studio lighting, too. I feel that the kicker light on the left (her right) is a little harsh. Trial and error, though. I'll get it eventually.

[cbacarella]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2555/3933559858_924f795595.jpg


Caption: (Taken in Michigan btw)

Garden City sophomore Laura Stark puts an insect into a cup held by Okemos freshman Sarah Morley as Sterling Heights freshman Jenna Patrico looks on. The girls were out with their Biology 110 class collecting samples from the Chippewa River Thursday morning. (Chris Bacarella/Staff Photographer Central Michigan Life Newspaper. All photos belong to myself and Central Michigan Life Newspaper. www.cm-life.com )

[jpct]

@mfd
http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/2158/img5815nv.jpg

[newbiephotographer]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2545/3928654049_6645af3fd3_b.jpg

[newbiephotographer]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3454/3929451360_86636a7031_b.jpg

[jpct]

shot wide open :)

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/5583/img5631t.jpg

[cbacarella]

Minimal Sharpening done here....

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3454/3951807437_6437704073.jpg

[ride5000]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2628/3950413023_3bf3cbae59.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ken-gilbert/3950413023/)

[bigrig]

Great shot ride5000!

[yogestee]

I posted this in the Urban Life & Travel forum..

"The Ghosts of Patuxay"..

[KayakPhotos]

I posted this in the Urban Life & Travel forum..

"The Ghosts of Patuxay"..


I like this one. How long was the shutter speed?

[yogestee]

Thanks Daniel..

Here is the EXIF

Model = Canon EOS 50D
Exposure Time = 30"
F Number = F16
Exposure Program = Manual
ISO Speed Ratings = 100
Focal Length = 50mm
Lens = Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di

[KayakPhotos]

Shot this today with my Tamron. About a 30% crop.

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk2/D40riggs/Nature%20Pics/surprisedyoungdeer.jpg

[stonyzmom]

I just bought this lens. I hope I'm happy with it. I was considering the 24-70L, but it is just not in the budget right now. I've never owned a Tamron so I'm looking forward to branching out. I also looked at the Canon 17-55, but it was more than twice what I paid for the Tamron. I'll keep you posted. I figure it's not a huge investment, but the rewards could be huge.:)

[remmeh]

gosh, i do like this lens...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3421/3961319464_6da852b368_b.jpg

[stonyzmom]

So far, I am loving this lens. I didn't think I would be so impressed with a non-Canon lens......wow. I just received it this afternoon and walked out in the backyard and took this pic.

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/849/61042368.jpg

[yogestee]

gosh, i do like this lens...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3421/3961319464_6da852b368_b.jpg

I did a double take when I saw this pic.. At first it looked like Lake Illawarra south of Sydney Australia..

[huyness]

sweet molasses i love this lens!
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2644/3957443995_4bc1b64e3c_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2498/3957443395_04ea7364ba_b.jpg

[pastanley]

I just purchased this lens new on ebay for $393 with shipping. Should have it in 4-5 days.

[GhostHunter]

I have also purchased this lens used on the bay of e for £250 (UKpounds) on the strength of these images on this forum and those on Flickr groups.

I was going to go for the Sigma 17-70mm but the IQ is way better IMO on the Tamron and i have a 50mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8 if i need more low light capability or reach.

The Tamron images IMO are hot on the heals of L glass quality!!! Bold statement but i really do think that's the case. Can't wait to get mine 'welded' to my 40D :cool:

[pastanley]

I have also purchased this lens used on the bay of e for £250 (UKpounds) on the strength of these images on this forum and those on Flickr groups.

I was going to go for the Sigma 17-70mm but the IQ is way better IMO on the Tamron and i have a 50mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8 if i need more low light capability or reach.

The Tamron images IMO are hot on the heals of L glass quality!!! Bold statement but i really do think that's the case. Can't wait to get mine 'welded' to my 40D :cool:
Same here Ghosthunter. I did research and comparrisons on the internet. The majority of the polls I have seen puts the Tamron aread of the Sigma by a 2-1 margin. I also chose a 17 MM because I needed something wider on my 40D. I sold my 28-135 to help fund my purchase.

[delucr]

I'm thinking about buying this lens when I get my first DLSR this month. I was also looking at getting the 50mm 1.8. For those of you that have both of these lenses, do you find that you never use the 50mm 1.8 or only use it occasionally?

[Daniel2000]

I use my 50mm occasionally, when I really need more light in poor lighting
and you get more depts separation at f/1.8 ;)
and even if its only the lower rank of 50mm for canon, it's still a prime and is sharper then the tamron
and for the price, why not having one? :p

I use mine more often reversed in front of my Sigma 70-300mm APO macro for even more magnification

[GhostHunter]

Same here Ghosthunter. I did research and comparrisons on the internet. The majority of the polls I have seen puts the Tamron aread of the Sigma by a 2-1 margin. I also chose a 17 MM because I needed something wider on my 40D. I sold my 28-135 to help fund my purchase.

I wanted 17mm also. I really did consider the Sigma 17-70 as it a great lens but the Tamron 17-50 is just brilliant. It has better sharpness, contrast, colours and quality feel just like L glass...ok almost like L glass!!

I have a new Tripod, A Canon 85mm f1.8 and Tamron all being delivered next week...oh and an EMF meter for Ghost hunting :D

[dpds68]

Bottom Corner of the Go Kart Track that I shoot at yesterday , I could not resist the sky .

http://i37.tinypic.com/2hdto45.jpg

[BluewookieJim]

I was scouting a new location for fall foliage shots this weekend. Found this one, which I have really high hopes for in the next couple of weeks.

http://photos.kodanja.net/img/v4/p373695609-4.jpg

[SamHunter]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3426/3984296343_8d0726409e.jpg

[vmlopes]

Couple from yesterday........

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3469/3983136427_067a0bce7e_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2520/3983216467_662688b314_b.jpg

[ride5000]

craaaazy location, lopes!

[GhostHunter]

Got my lens today, looks like new and works perfect. I have taken a couple hand held shots and am very pleased with the quality of the images. They have a certain something! I'll pop some images up here when i get some decent ones done!

[vmlopes]

craaaazy location, lopes!

Yep Pyestock NGTE is a monster..............couple more

Need to clone the flash out of this one ;)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3483/3983206791_aa23cfde70_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3443/3983464625_53213f1c59_b.jpg

[bucket772]

From today. Picked up used.

1/320
f/7.1
ISO 100
44mm

30d
http://www.davehoffmanphotography.com/photos/672357368_SuMRf-L.jpg

[cbacarella]

I LOVE dogs and your photo! So, ill add a dog photo i took!

For those who ask if this lens is sharp....i think so!


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3419/3987996946_bd6d4b2411_b.jpg


.Chris

[KayakPhotos]

A recent shot taken at an abandoned gas station.

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk2/D40riggs/Street%20Photography/gasstationsign.jpg

[stonyzmom]

I am so happy with this lens. I took this the other day while golfing......it was cold and dark.

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/1651/113ga.jpg

[delucr]

I am so happy with this lens. I took this the other day while golfing......it was cold and dark.

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/1651/113ga.jpg

Great Pic Stonzymom! I see that you have the 18-55 IS as well. I'm buying my first DSLR this month and I have to decide between getting the Tamron 17-50 or the 18-55 IS, 430EX II, and 50mm 1.8. In your opinion is the IQ of the Tamron worth holding off a flash and nifty fifty?

[stonyzmom]

Thanks! I have the original version of the 18-55....not the IS version. It came with my Rebel XTi and is an okay walk around lens. I don't know much about the 18-55 IS version, but I will say that I am very, very happy with the Tamron 17-50. I was a bit hesitant to buy a non-Canon lens, but thus far I am very impressed and pleased with my purchase. :)

[hannibal31]

I received my Tamron 17-50 lens a few days ago. My first wide angle lens. I love the fact that I can now get the entire building or landscape in the picture. My old 28-135 just was'nt cutting it. I bought mine new on Ebay for $393 shipping included.

[dmeiselman]

I'm crazy happy with mine, marvelous image quality, it gets tons of use indoors and out. Only problem I have with mine is that when zoomed to 17mm and focused to infinity, two of the elements touch eachother, though it is still sharp and focuses accurately. My copy improves significantly at f/3.2 as compared to 2.8. Normal?

Here's a recent landscape and a portrait:

http://meiselman.smugmug.com/photos/669280534_iAWS7-O.jpg

http://meiselman.smugmug.com/photos/675504670_B7Asu-XL.jpg

[hannibal31]

Love both shots dmeiselman. Those nightfall shots and sunrise shots really moves me the most out of all the landscape shots. Just goes to show the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 serves as both a landscape and a portrait lens.

[carianoff]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3493/3997268004_ea8edd3881_b.jpg

[fotographer1000]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2487/4007577214_9a3345f440_b.jpg

[KayakPhotos]

Nice colors on this one. You might try using a tighter crop or at least take the point of interest out of the center of the frame.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2487/4007577214_9a3345f440_b.jpg

[newbiephotographer]

Nice colors on this one. You might try using a tighter crop or at least take the point of interest out of the center of the frame.

Yeah, the background is a little too busy.

[JPayne]

Just had mine delivered today to hopefully be my new glamour-shoot lens. Fingers crossed for some good results.

[Ryan7490]

Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 SP XR Di II VC (Vibration Compensation) Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

On amazon it says this lens isnt even out yet? Is that because it has the VC?

Is it worth the extra $$$ for the VC?

[KayakPhotos]

Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 SP XR Di II VC (Vibration Compensation) Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

On amazon it says this lens isnt even out yet? Is that because it has the VC?

Is it worth the extra $$$ for the VC?

If it was me, I would probably just buy a used Canon 17-55 for a little bit more. The Canon has USM and IS. If you want to save some money and don't need the VC, the first version is worth the savings in my opinion. I would like to have the Canon, but my Tamron has been a great lens for the money.

[shaftmaster]

The only thing I really don't like about my 17-50 is the backwards zoom compared to Canon or Sigma zooms. I have no problem with the build quality, AF noise, etc. but the opposite zoom rotation causes me to lose some shots occasionally because I twisted it the wrong way. Still love the lens though.

[Ryan7490]

The only thing I really don't like about my 17-50 is the backwards zoom compared to Canon or Sigma zooms. I have no problem with the build quality, AF noise, etc. but the opposite zoom rotation causes me to lose some shots occasionally because I twisted it the wrong way. Still love the lens though.

Backwards zoom? That would mess me up too. I'll have to think twice about that.

[vmlopes]

Backwards zoom? That would mess me up too. I'll have to think twice about that.

You seriously get used to it even with swapping to other direction zoom's

[yogestee]

The only thing I really don't like about my 17-50 is the backwards zoom compared to Canon or Sigma zooms. I have no problem with the build quality, AF noise, etc. but the opposite zoom rotation causes me to lose some shots occasionally because I twisted it the wrong way. Still love the lens though.

Being an ex-Nikon film camera user I always thought Canon lenses focus backwards..

[Daniel2000]

I'm so used to it, I didn't remembered it was a "backward" zoom compared to canon until you mention it
and for missing some shots because of it... how can it be? it takes me half a sec to twist it either way, and its not like it has the range of Sigme 50-500 :p

[JPayne]

Not the best pics but here's a few from the weekend.

3 day old baby
http://www.jpayne.co.uk/images/random/resize.jpg

100% Crop
http://www.jpayne.co.uk/images/random/crop.jpg

My dog
http://www.jpayne.co.uk/images/random/jenson.jpg

100% eye crop (not of my dog)
http://www.jpayne.co.uk/images/random/eye.jpg

[shaftmaster]

I'm so used to it, I didn't remembered it was a "backward" zoom compared to canon until you mention it
and for missing some shots because of it... how can it be? it takes me half a sec to twist it either way, and its not like it has the range of Sigme 50-500 :p

Most of what I shoot currently is children. A half second or even a tenth of a second is a long time when you are shooting a moving subject. With a moving subject I will always have some missed shots, but it's annoying when I miss a shot because I twisted the zoom the wrong way.

[Canonswhitelensesrule]

I find that the majority of photos taken with this lens are very crisp, sharp, and vibrant in colour. Moreso in fact than the majority of photos taken with the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 I.S. Not saying that it's a "better" lens, just that I find the colours quite a bit more brilliant and vibrant.

Hopefully the new VC version of this lens will produce the same outstanding and brilliant images.

[cbacarella]

A quick couple from the Pumpkin Patch. So i really dont edit photos a whole lot due to mostly my photojournalistic approach...so i decided to play with editing a bit. These are not the best photos...haha..but i dont mind them!


This is my favorite part of the pumpkin patch! Cider and donuts!

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2730/4027902227_0e0469f729.jpg

A friend poking through a corn thing..haha

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2549/4028655694_dfdcbf0349.jpg


annnddd....A mini house for the children...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3505/4027902123_4f2c5e87bd.jpg




.Chris.

[Blazin]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2597/4021860705_1bda58b19a_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2780/4022561094_7f2596f250_o.jpg

[Randall n LV]

The Road to Red Rock Canyon. 2 exposure hdr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2791/4018610168_8c2a958ae8_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3023/3996339851_a9457d4929_o.jpg

[bigrig]

My pumpkin patch pics. Shot with a 40D at f2.8, ISO 100.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2546/3984422279_1ff1fd2947_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53598920@N00/3984422279/)


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2455/3984420119_d8669e90d6_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53598920@N00/3984420119/)


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3471/3985180018_cf068db20c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53598920@N00/3985180018/)

Matt

[MackDaddy1962]

Blazin, Randall n LV & bigrig stunning exposures my brethren!

[stonyzmom]

I really love this lens.

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/7144/17314015.jpg

[stonyzmom]

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/7422/192ai.jpg

[Daniel2000]

WOW!

[rupek]

The Road to Red Rock Canyon. 2 exposure hdr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2791/4018610168_8c2a958ae8_o.jpg



Love this shot. What PP did you do?

[Randall n LV]

Thanks Mackdaddy and Rupek. They are 2 and 3 exposure HDR processed with photomatix and finished in PS3