Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8

[motofotog]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7003/6393292307_cf30a9b415_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/arvindm29/6393292307/)
Lines (http://www.flickr.com/photos/arvindm29/6393292307/) by MotoFotog (http://www.flickr.com/people/arvindm29/), on Flickr

[MaxSteel]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7145/6450335019_8b090e3b72_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/maxsimpson/6450335019/)
HDR (http://www.flickr.com/photos/maxsimpson/6450335019/) by Max Simpson (http://www.flickr.com/people/maxsimpson/), on Flickr

[fotuwe]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7155/6454466063_b48a68d880_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotuwe/6454466063/)

[velasco]

hi

whats the difference between
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 Non VC vs LD aspherical (IF)

which is this group catered for?

[cagenuts]

The non VC lens.

It 'seems' that when Tamron upgraded the lens to include VC, the resulting elements combination was less than favourable.

[velasco]

The non VC lens.

It 'seems' that when Tamron upgraded the lens to include VC, the resulting elements combination was less than favourable.


oh thats awesome. i am really thinking of purchasing this to replace my kit lens which IS has gone bonkers. Im using a 450D btw.

[speed200]

Shadows...

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk104/jo5ant05/DPP_10939.jpg

[cagenuts]

Nice!

[dendywongcunhan]

568071

[Max Powers]

If any Canadians are interested, I am selling my 17-50. I will also consider shipping to the states.

In all honesty, it's such a great lens. Not only for the price, but it's just great on it's own. I used it most of the time on my XSi and would recommend it to anyone!

[boerewors]

Here is a couple from a wedding i shot. What i found is that i needed more reach. Kinda hoping i had gotten the 28-70 instead, but i dont know if the IQ of that lens is any good compared to the 17-50

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7011/6471556889_ed03ed6b9e_z.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7031/6471578723_91053245b2_z.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7175/6471577065_f7cd83d0a9_z.jpg

[jm_usmc]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7004/6477755457_a97d3010ae_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/25645695@N03/6477755457/)
IMG_6664.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/25645695@N03/6477755457/) by j.mccall13 (http://www.flickr.com/people/25645695@N03/), on Flickr

[DaveKosiba]

Shadows...

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk104/jo5ant05/DPP_10939.jpg

Really like!

Reminds me of the movie 2001 A Space Odessey

[Josh-HL]

After looking through about 100 pages finally ordered mine today :) Seen some great pics taken with this lens so looking forward to getting mine.

Can anyone tell me if the motor as noisey as the kit 18-55 or the 50mm 1.8? A few people have said its noisey so just wondering.

[CaptainTonus]

Can anyone tell me if the motor as noisey as the kit 18-55 or the 50mm 1.8? A few people have said its noisey so just wondering.

It's definitely more noisy than either of those lenses, but it focuses much quicker and more accurately. Take the good with the bad.

[Josh-HL]

It's definitely more noisy than either of those lenses, but it focuses much quicker and more accurately. Take the good with the bad.

Thanks for the info, yeah noise isn't too much of a problem as long as it gives good results, thats all that matters I suppose.

[LudwigVB]

It's all relative, isn't it? I don't think of the Tammy as noisy, but maybe that's just me. I thought my nifty-fifty (long since disposed of) was noisy. My 50 compact macro is quite noisy too, when it decides to hunt for focus.

[speed200]

Really like!

Reminds me of the movie 2001 A Space Odessey

Thanks;)

[watt100]

Can anyone tell me if the motor as noisey as the kit 18-55 or the 50mm 1.8? A few people have said its noisey so just wondering.

yes, it's louder but it doesn't bother me

with XSi (450D)
f2.8
ISO 2000
1/40


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7152/6446620385_a6dff28694_b.jpg

[jamganz]

Just rec'd the Tamron 17-50 non VC and couldn't wait to try it out. Took a walk up to Grand Central to try it out. These are straight out of camera with no PP. Only resize.

[ESMcBlurM3]

Here a couple I took recently with the tammy

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb35/emcbane/c77003c1.jpg

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb35/emcbane/97b186e5.jpg

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb35/emcbane/8a118b20.jpg

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb35/emcbane/09c5d490.jpg

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb35/emcbane/f1af185c.jpg

[Josh-HL]

yay mine arrived today, cant wait to take it out see what it can do when the weather is nicer

[martincappi]

Hi I would like to contribute with more pictures this time :-)

Everything taken with 50D. This lense is really worth buying!

1/100s ISO 1600
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7822017/potn/IMG_6570.jpg

1/400s ISO 400
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7822017/potn/IMG_6832.jpg

1/400s ISO 400
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7822017/potn/IMG_6834.jpg

1/40s ISO 400
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7822017/potn/IMG_6839.jpg

1/6s ISO 400
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7822017/potn/Kozel_resize.JPG

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7822017/potn/Priba.png

[rsboag]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7034/6508857971_c5a6d73353_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rsbp/6508857971/)
Stormy (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rsbp/6508857971/) by rsbp (http://www.flickr.com/people/rsbp/), on Flickr

[DaveKosiba]

Really nice pictures Martin! I really like my Tamron lens also, it produces stunningly sharp pictures.

[bigrig]

I like the shots I'm getting using bounced external flash. Canon 40D, 1/60 f4 ISO 400

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7008/6464598799_762d66254c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53598920@N00/6464598799/)
IMG_2476B (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53598920@N00/6464598799/) by bigrig (http://www.flickr.com/people/53598920@N00/), on flickr

[martincappi]

Really nice pictures Martin! I really like my Tamron lens also, it produces stunningly sharp pictures.

Indeed, I am very nicely surprised by its performance. It is even half the price of used 24-70L. That lens I'm gonna get right after 70-200 :) But as a student I gotta be really patient.


I like the shots I'm getting using bounced external flash. Canon 40D, 1/60 f4 ISO 400

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7008/6464598799_762d66254c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53598920@N00/6464598799/)
IMG_2476B (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53598920@N00/6464598799/) by bigrig (http://www.flickr.com/people/53598920@N00/), on flickr

Nice family photo :)

[The Fox]

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/325/5/1/motorcycle_1_by_thy_fox-d4gxc2f.jpg

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/325/2/6/long_beach_zombie_walk_9_by_thy_fox-d4gxcxg.jpg

http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/325/5/0/long_beach_zombie_walk_8_by_thy_fox-d4gxcvo.jpg

Nick

[Josh-HL]

First time trying out this lens, and the room was so dark and had no flash, but fairly happy with how the pics turned out

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7024/6523744129_3de79860a1.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/onzabikes/6523744129/)
IMG_2444-2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/onzabikes/6523744129/) by Onzabikes (http://www.flickr.com/people/onzabikes/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7034/6523635411_c64ff01cf1.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/onzabikes/6523635411/)
IMG_2422-5 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/onzabikes/6523635411/) by Onzabikes (http://www.flickr.com/people/onzabikes/), on Flickr

[acousticdank]

Just decided to take the plunge and pick one up.

For others on the fence, buydig.com has it for $409 right now with a Mail in Rebate of $25 making it $384. I've been scouting ebay and classified for used options and I see them going for $325 on average lately. Figure this is worth the investment.

[motofotog]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7174/6519505331_483b1499e1_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/arvindm29/6519505331/)
magic of West coast (http://www.flickr.com/photos/arvindm29/6519505331/) by MotoFotog (http://www.flickr.com/people/arvindm29/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7020/6519681353_02960ddc80_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/arvindm29/6519681353/)
tranquilizing beach from Cabo de Rama Fort, Canacona (http://www.flickr.com/photos/arvindm29/6519681353/) by MotoFotog (http://www.flickr.com/people/arvindm29/), on Flickr

[cagenuts]

Love these shots MotoFotog!

[watt100]

BMX stunts -

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4097/4936301654_7d5458be7b_b.jpg

[motofotog]

Love these shots MotoFotog!

thank you!!

[dsblk93gt]

I am really debating this lens, might be a great upgrade for my T1i.

[rpaul]

http://djlhggipcyllo.cloudfront.net/3856981/1280823b58249942c7335809e42c76d21f6504bc/4.jpg (http://500px.com/photo/3856981)

[F-Stran]

Nice photo paul

[F-Stran]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7035/6550183919_39a8de00f9_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/37829497@N07/6550183919/)
Unexpected (http://www.flickr.com/photos/37829497@N07/6550183919/) by Zudi (http://www.flickr.com/people/37829497@N07/), on Flickr

[Josh-HL]

amazing sky ^^

[LudwigVB]

Yes, marvellous sky but the foreground tree branches also contribute greatly to this terrific photograph.

[tomcat7886]

lovely baby images :D

[motofotog]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7141/6557776745_4cb9347049_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/arvindm29/6557776745/)
Blue Lagoon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/arvindm29/6557776745/) by MotoFotog (http://www.flickr.com/people/arvindm29/), on Flickr

one of the private beach on the Goan coast.

[cagenuts]

So where is Brooke Shields then?

[motofotog]

she was with me behind the camera... ;)

[jamganz]

Nice shots everyone. Really like the color in that sunset F-Stran. Just got this lens 2 weeks ago and trying to get out as much as possible to get familiar with it. Noticed this neon sign on the West Side in NYC several months ago. Finally had a chance on the way home the other night to stop and try and capture the color. Taken in manual mode at F5.6 and 1/50. Happy Holidays everyone!

[DaveKosiba]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7002/6566400479_36734abbbc_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/58727374@N08/6566400479/)
Marina Bay Towers-1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/58727374@N08/6566400479/) by davidkosiba (http://www.flickr.com/people/58727374@N08/), on Flickr

[Powashiftin]

Anyone have issues with the lens being soft at f2.8?

[kwando]

Anyone have issues with the lens being soft at f2.8?

Ive had two copies and both were very sharp, if it's soft send it back to tamron

[Powashiftin]

Crap, do I have to register it ?

[Inchpractice]

Crap, do I have to register it ?

Read through the thread man, almost EVERYone has had that problem.

[DaveKosiba]

Anyone have issues with the lens being soft at f2.8?

Nope, razor sharp.

[boerewors]

those of you who claim razor sharp at f/2.8, please do post an example of yours to back up your bold statements.
I personally find this lens soft @ f/2.8 yet it rivals L glass primes between f4-f8. F/2.8 i find useable for close ups. Head and shoulder shots will be fine, but full body shots are not so good. You could probably get awat with an 8x10.

[watt100]

those of you who claim razor sharp at f/2.8, please do post an example of yours to back up your bold statements.
I personally find this lens soft @ f/2.8 yet it rivals L glass primes between f4-f8. F/2.8 .

my f2.8 shots with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 are very sharp but for portraits I generally use a longer focal length, e.g. Tamron 90mm

with XSi (450D)

f2.8

ISO 2000

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4106/5192949623_7e36ff942c_b.jpg


with XSi (450D)

f2.8

ISO 1600



http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5228/5764071955_bdbb81ef2a_b.jpg

remember the "DOF" at f2.8 !

[ilguercio]

those of you who claim razor sharp at f/2.8, please do post an example of yours to back up your bold statements.
I personally find this lens soft @ f/2.8 yet it rivals L glass primes between f4-f8. F/2.8 i find useable for close ups. Head and shoulder shots will be fine, but full body shots are not so good. You could probably get awat with an 8x10.

Mine is not soft.
My Sigma 24-70 was way softer in comparison.
I'll post something when i have some spare time.

[boerewors]

Also take into account the focal length whe shooting @2.8. Try a full body portrait @ 50mm f/2.8, i would be interested to see the 100% crop. At short focal lengths i would probably agree that it could be sharp but i always use this lens @ its maximum zoom because its better for portraits. The 2 examples above dont cover the scenario im describing. The first one is a closeup and the second is taken at a short focal length.

[DaveKosiba]

those of you who claim razor sharp at f/2.8, please do post an example of yours to back up your bold statements.
I personally find this lens soft @ f/2.8 yet it rivals L glass primes between f4-f8. F/2.8 i find useable for close ups. Head and shoulder shots will be fine, but full body shots are not so good. You could probably get awat with an 8x10.

No softness that I can see at f/2.8 (other than the intentional shallow DOF). Maybe you are confusing Bokeh with softness?

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7141/6585774199_2397cf21f8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/58727374@N08/6585774199/)
tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/58727374@N08/6585774199/) by davidkosiba (http://www.flickr.com/people/58727374@N08/), on Flickr

[boerewors]

nice picture and that does look better than what my copy is capable of, however i would like to see a full body portrait of a person at 2.8. that is where my lens really suffers. would be nice to compare. thanks

[watt100]

nice picture and that does look better than what my copy is capable of, however i would like to see a full body portrait of a person at 2.8. that is where my lens really suffers.

dude, your "suffering" is called "depth of field" !!
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398

[boerewors]

dude, your "suffering" is called "depth of field" !!
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398

i dont think so. as far as i know, the farther away the subject is from the lens, the greater the depth of field is. And the opposite of that is causing loss of quality in my images. Close up images with less depth are sharper than distant objects with greater depth. the typical scenario with my lens is a full body portrait taken at f2.8 @ 50mm will produce a soft image. When i stop it down between f4-F8 it turns into what i would consider L glass rivalry.
So if you guys can post some f2.8 shots @ 50mm that are full body length shots and include a 100% of the eyes of the subject, i would apreciate the gesture since it will confirm that my lens is a bad copy. I had sent it in twice for calibration. When i first bought it, it was front focusing, but now it focuses well. I have also tried manual focus and live view focus but the results are always the same. Soft at f2.8, razor sharp between f4-f8

[DaveKosiba]

I'd be glad to help by shooting a sample image, however, I'm thinking about the fact that if I focus on a subject, typically the eye, and I have a six foot subject, aren't the subjects feet further from the lens than the person's eye? If so, should I expect the subject's feet to also be in focus?

Using the online DOF calculator, a 60D, 50mm, f/2.8, subject 10' away, I get a pretty small DOF. Basically 6" in front and behind the subject. Would this be a shallow enough DOF to reduce sharpness on a full body portrait?.

[cagenuts]

My understanding is that everything in that plane of focus will be, well, in focus. It shouldn't matter how tall they are once you have taken that measurement into account with the DOF calculation.

Imagine what the poor sods must deal with shooting with 85mm f/1.2.....

[DaveKosiba]

nice picture and that does look better than what my copy is capable of, however i would like to see a full body portrait of a person at 2.8. that is where my lens really suffers. would be nice to compare. thanks

Took some test shots of my nephew at f/2.8, 1/500, ISO400, 50mm, about 10 ft away, and I must say that if I focus on the face the rest of the body is not in sharp focus. However, when I take pictures of things close up, or if I stop down to 4.5, the entire frame is in focus. Not sure if I would say the lens is "bad", I would just assume this is a normal limitation of the lens. Maybe someone else can confirm.

I would hope and expect that if I spent more than 2X the cost on the Canon 17-55 f/2.8, the picture would be sharper throughout more of the frame. You could compare the MTF charts at photozone.com and probably see the same fall off in resolution as you move away from the center.

EDIT: Here are the two charts, the Tamron at 50mm, the Canon at 55mm. So my expectation appears to be wrong, the Tamron should have similar (or better) sharpness than the Canon lens.

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7143/6590152107_6aa1d54b54.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/58727374@N08/6590152107/)
mtf_17-50 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/58727374@N08/6590152107/) by davidkosiba (http://www.flickr.com/people/58727374@N08/), on Flickr

Canon 17-55 f/2.8
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7158/6590152057_5303937cd5.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/58727374@N08/6590152057/)
mtf_17-55 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/58727374@N08/6590152057/) by davidkosiba (http://www.flickr.com/people/58727374@N08/), on Flickr

[DaveKosiba]

Also take into account the focal length whe shooting @2.8. Try a full body portrait @ 50mm f/2.8, i would be interested to see the 100% crop. At short focal lengths i would probably agree that it could be sharp but i always use this lens @ its maximum zoom because its better for portraits. The 2 examples above dont cover the scenario im describing. The first one is a closeup and the second is taken at a short focal length.

Thinking about this further, if you are wanting 50mm @ f/2.8 for a portrait, I would shoot that using the nifty-fifty. It's also a sharp lens since it's a prime and it may work better for your needs. Looking at the MTF chart, the 50mm prime appears to have higher resolution than the Tamron at f/2.8.

[watt100]

i dont think so. as far as i know, the farther away the subject is from the lens, the greater the depth of field is. And the opposite of that is causing loss of quality in my images. Close up images with less depth are sharper than distant objects with greater depth. the typical scenario with my lens is a full body portrait taken at f2.8 @ 50mm will produce a soft image. When i stop it down between f4-F8 it turns into what i would consider L glass rivalry.
So if you guys can post some f2.8 shots @ 50mm that are full body length shots and include a 100% of the eyes of the subject, i would apreciate the gesture since it will confirm that my lens is a bad copy. I had sent it in twice for calibration. When i first bought it, it was front focusing, but now it focuses well. I have also tried manual focus and live view focus but the results are always the same. Soft at f2.8, razor sharp between f4-f8

sorry about your "loss of quality", When I shoot at f2.8 everything looks sharp to me but then I don't do full body portraits at f2.8


XSi (450D) with Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc

f2.8
ISO 2200

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6061/6046518039_f180d06f4f_b.jpg

[Inchpractice]

Oh God, I can't believe how long this discussion has gone on.

The lens is soft at f2.8 at EVERY focal length, not just for a certain type of portrait at a certain focal length at a particular distance from the lens. It is soft widen open. Period. It's famous for it.
Like I said go back through the pages of this thread, it's littered with people saying 'Just bought this lens, does anyone else find it soft at f2.8?'
Yes. We all do.

If your copy is sharp wide open then you were lucky enough to get a perfect copy but they're pretty rare apparently.
The only time this lens is sharp wide open is when the subject is so close that it's within 2 feet of the camera. Even then it's not always sharp.

And people, please don't patronise others by telling them that they don't understand DOF properly because it has nothing to do with that.
It's just the nature of this lens. People buy this lens because they can't afford the 17-55m EF-S or they don't want to carry that kind of weight around.
Simple as that. It's a great lens but it has it's limitations.

[watt100]

Oh God, I can't believe how long this discussion has gone on.
The lens is soft at f2.8 at EVERY focal length, not just for a certain type of portrait at a certain focal length at a particular distance from the lens. It is soft widen open. Period. It's famous for it.
And people, please don't patronise others by telling them that they don't understand DOF properly.


OMG !
dude, the Tamron 17-50 2.8 is famous for being sharp at f2.8 !
look at every review - www.photozone.de digital picture, FM, etc.
Look at all the pics in this thread !
(hint: go back and google "DOF" - sorry for patronizing you)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398

XSi (450D)

at f2.8

very random f2.8 pic with the Tamron 17-50 -


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7167/6500297623_cdbe759e7e_b.jpg

[Inchpractice]

OMG !
dude, the Tamron 17-50 2.8 is famous for being sharp at f2.8 !
look at every review - www.photozone.de digital picture, FM, etc.
Look at all the pics in this thread !
(hint: go back and google "DOF" - sorry for patronizing you)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398

XSi (450D)

at f2.8

very random f2.8 pic with the Tamron 17-50 -


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7167/6500297623_cdbe759e7e_b.jpg

So the reviews say it's sharp, big woop. How many times do you think Tamron tested the lens before they sent it off to be reviewed?
Reviews are irrelevant if REAL experiences from the public differ wildly from those reviews.
I'll say this for the last time because you're either lazy or a bit hard of understanding - go back through THIS thread and look at all the people complaining about the softness wide open, I'd be willing to bet there are over 200 of them.
It's known for it just as the nifty fifty is.

Also bear in mind my own personal experiences. I bought this lens from a respected retailer and it was front focussing BY A MILE. I went back and exchanged it for another copy, this time it was back focussing severely. I returned again and exchanged it for a third copy. The third copy was acceptable in some situations but still not right. It was far better than the previous two copies so I sent it off to Tamron to be adjusted.
Now that they've adjusted it it's a good lens but it's still slightly soft wide open. That's the best that Tamron can do apparently.
As I said, a hugely different experience from the one the reviewers had.

It's interesting to see your sample of a shot taken at f2.8 because you ask me to Google DOF and yet the DOF in that image is not consistent with one taken at f2.8 unless you've cropped it.
Assuming you focussed on the grey haired guy in the centre, the grey haired woman in the background should at least be slightly OOF but she isn't.
To me that tells me that your DOF is unusually deep, which means your copy of this lens behaves in a very different way from mine. At f2.8 my lens delivers very nice bokeh and a good shallow DOF especially at the longer focal lengths.
Does yours do the same?

As we have different cameras perhaps we can conclude that the lens behaves differently on different bodies and differs further depending on how good the copy you have is.
If that's the case then it certainly can't be famous for being sharp wide open.
Tamron's quality control clearly leaves a lot to be desired.

[boerewors]

OMG !
dude, the Tamron 17-50 2.8 is famous for being sharp at f2.8 !
look at every review - www.photozone.de digital picture, FM, etc.
Look at all the pics in this thread !
(hint: go back and google "DOF" - sorry for patronizing you)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398

XSi (450D)

at f2.8

very random f2.8 pic with the Tamron 17-50 -


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7167/6500297623_cdbe759e7e_b.jpg

i wish i was on my PC right now so i could check the exif on this image. It certainy does not look like 50mm to me. If it was was 50mm, you would be getting a hell of a lot less depth. If i use between 17 and up to around 35mm, my f2.8 images can be pretty sharp too. Its at 50mm where the difference occurs (on my lens) and its not due to depth of field. Well you may be one of the few people who received a good copy, but just to be sure i would like to see an image at 50mm (full body). My apologies if this image is 50mm because i am not near a pc to view the exif.

[watt100]

It's interesting to see your sample of a shot taken at f2.8 because you ask me to Google DOF and yet the DOF in that image is not consistent with one taken at f2.8 unless you've cropped it.
Assuming you focussed on the grey haired guy in the centre, the grey haired woman in the background should at least be slightly OOF but she isn't.
To me that tells me that your DOF is unusually deep, which means your copy of this lens behaves in a very different way from mine. At f2.8 my lens delivers very nice bokeh and a good shallow DOF especially at the longer focal lengths.
Does yours do the same?
.

it could be a lens conspiracy, evil forces acting to frustrate you!
You could look at thousands of Tamron 17-50 2.8 pics at f2.8 by doing a Flickr search, e.g.

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Tamron+17-50+2.8&ct=0&mt=all&adv=1

or maybe google circle of confusion, DOF, depth of field, etc.



XSi (450D) with a random Tamron 17-50 2.8 photo at f2.8




http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6184/6076368447_62c7cac28c_b.jpg

[ilguercio]

Lenses are subject to defects, obviously, but i've heard much more complaints from the Sigma users than from the Tamron users.
My Tamron is definitely sharper than my previous Sigma 24-70 DG Macro which is odd because the Sigma is a FF lens and thus should perform better on crop sensors since you're using the best part of the glass.
I would never buy a 24-70 again, i'm sorry, but i would recommend the Tamron because i've found it to be even well built (i was expecting a toy, to be honest, and i was surprised in a good way when i felt it in my handsfor the first time) .
I can't complain about my Tamron, i would just like it had a better focus ring for MF but it's usable so it's not a big deal.
So many reviews say it is sharp so why are you people still questioning the good quality of the lens?
Oh, and not to mention i bought mine for 200€ with 3 CF cards and 2 UV filters (one of which is a Tamron) so it's a good price to performance item.
Since some of you won't believe my statement i will find a few examples from the lens at f/2.8. Images are much more worthy that words in this case.

[Josh-HL]

One I took with this lens on christmas day of my cousin

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7163/6572050699_6831dacf56.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/onzabikes/6572050699/)
IMG_2645 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/onzabikes/6572050699/) by Onzabikes (http://www.flickr.com/people/onzabikes/), on Flickr

[boerewors]

@ watt100: no metadata found. your images do not appear to be taken at 50mm. there is no way indoor shots can be so wide like that @ 50 mm. why dont you try set up your images the way i explained so people can see the truth.
here is what i get:
f2.8 @ 50mm
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7142/6598593923_029686506a_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/65910479@N03/6598593923/)
IMG_8279 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/65910479@N03/6598593923/) by de fortier (http://www.flickr.com/people/65910479@N03/), on Flickr

and the 100% crop (unfortunately i shot this in MRAW). the 100% crop would be more worse.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7017/6598594501_b275d86646_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/65910479@N03/6598594501/)
IMG_8279 crop (http://www.flickr.com/photos/65910479@N03/6598594501/) by de fortier (http://www.flickr.com/people/65910479@N03/), on Flickr

and now the tamron @ f7.1 and 41mm under good lighting
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7031/6598595479_b6d070b604_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/65910479@N03/6598595479/)
IMG_9223 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/65910479@N03/6598595479/) by de fortier (http://www.flickr.com/people/65910479@N03/), on Flickr

and the 100% crop
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7008/6598596677_7c24f86b56_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/65910479@N03/6598596677/)
IMG_9223 crop (http://www.flickr.com/photos/65910479@N03/6598596677/) by de fortier (http://www.flickr.com/people/65910479@N03/), on Flickr

same lens but a huge difference between f2.8 and f7.1.

[cagenuts]

I need to try this again. I too don't have any sharp shots @ f/2.8 but I will try again this weekend and see.

[watt100]

I need to try this again. I too don't have any sharp shots @ f/2.8 but I will try again this weekend and see.

OK, channel all your photo skills this weekend


XSi (450D) with Tamron 17-50 non-vc

at f2.8
ISO 800


http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4078/4872500040_b5c09ea12e_b.jpg

f2.8 - f11 comparisons -
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398

www.photozone.de

[boerewors]

ok i have 2 comments to make here. first thing is this is the third time you have not shown us proof of your aperture by giving us the exif data. it tells me that you have something to hide. second thing is, in that link you showed us, you gave the link for the tamron at f2.8, but at 17mm. change the zoom to 50mm and you will see how the tamron becomes soft. even on those charts you can see how corner sharpness is dreadful and thats where the eyes would be on a full body portrait. here is the link for you to look at: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=398&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

OK, channel all your photo skills this weekend


XSi (450D) with Tamron 17-50 non-vc

at f2.8
ISO 800


http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4078/4872500040_b5c09ea12e_b.jpg

f2.8 - f11 comparisons -
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398

www.photozone.de (http://www.photozone.de)

[cagenuts]

That's incredible!

Every focal length bar 50/55mm the Tamron is sharper than the lofty 17-55 f/2.8.

Even at 50/55 if you stop down once to f/4 the Tamron is sharper again.

Am I seeing this correctly?

[watt100]

ok i have 2 comments to make here. first thing is this is the third time you have not shown us proof of your aperture by giving is the exif data. it tells me that you have something to hide. second thing is, in that link you showed us, you gave the link for the tamron at f2.8, but at 17mm. change the zoom to 50mm and you will see how the tamron becomes soft. here is the link for you to look at:

"something to hide" LOL ! :D:D:D

yes, I secretly switched to the 5Dmk2 and secretly switched the lens from the Tamron to the 50L
you are a super sleuth!

But to the point, you have to equate all the variables - aperture, focal length, camera bodies, etc. exactly on those comparison sites !
--- close is not good enough (except for horse shoes and hand grenades!)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398

EXIF data? on the dog pic?


Camera XSi

Exposure 0.013 sec (1/80) Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length 32 mm ISO Speed 800 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash Off, Did not fire X-Resolution 240 dpi

[DaveKosiba]

boerewors, I went through a similar issue with a Sigma 10-20, reviews said it was a good lens, other POTN's like the lens, but the two copies I had were not that great. I also took the lens to an authorized service center and had it checked. I made many posts in the Wigma forum talking about the issues I had with the lens, one member even downloaded my pictures and compared them to what he had for me so I would have a bit better idea of how well my lens was performing. In the end I was not happy with the lens (too much softness around the edges of the frame) and sent it back.

You are probably in the same boat, you have a lens that is probably within spec but you are not happy with. I would suggest selling the lens and buying something else.

[boerewors]

That's incredible!

Every focal length bar 50/55mm the Tamron is sharper than the lofty 17-55 f/2.8.

Even at 50/55 if you stop down once to f/4 the Tamron is sharper again.

Am I seeing this correctly?

i see the opposite. The canon is sharper. The default view is the lens selection on the left and the mouse over is the lens selection on the right.

[boerewors]

"something to hide" LOL ! :D:D:D

yes, I secretly switched to the 5Dmk2 and secretly switched the lens from the Tamron to the 50L
you are a super sleuth!

But to the point, you have to equate all the variables - aperture, focal length, camera bodies, etc. exactly on those comparison sites !
--- close is not good enough (except for horse shoes and hand grenades!)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398

EXIF data? on the dog pic?


Camera XSi

Exposure 0.013 sec (1/80) Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length 32 mm ISO Speed 800 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash Off, Did not fire X-Resolution 240 dpi

and the problem is that your image was taken at 32mm. If you look a few posts back you will see that i mentioned the softness issue i have comes in at the telefocal length of 50mm and also mostly for images taken at a bit of a distance. Your examples have not covered this scenario even once yet.
To further show you the issue, i provided the link to the charts of the tamron at 50mm f2.8 which clearly shows the softness of the lens which is especially bad at the edges which will be where the eye area is on a full body portrait orientation image. The proof is right there.
I further posted examples of my own images showing the issue on my own lens and another example at different settings which yeilded a very sharp image. The same lens, one image soft and the other very sharp. If i had a bad copy i would expect my second image to be a bit soft too.
Also in your images you have not provided any 100% crops. Please i ask you with a humble heart, go out there and take a full body, portait orientation image at 50mm f2.8 and post the image here together with a 100% crop of the eye area and dont add any sharpening in post. I would suggest shoot RAW, process it through ACR on default settings (sharpness on 25 or even zero if you dare). If your 100% crop of the eye area is sharp, then i am comming to your house when you are asleep and switching out your lens with mine :)

[boerewors]

boerewors, I went through a similar issue with a Sigma 10-20, reviews said it was a good lens, other POTN's like the lens, but the two copies I had were not that great. I also took the lens to an authorized service center and had it checked. I made many posts in the Wigma forum talking about the issues I had with the lens, one member even downloaded my pictures and compared them to what he had for me so I would have a bit better idea of how well my lens was performing. In the end I was not happy with the lens (too much softness around the edges of the frame) and sent it back.

You are probably in the same boat, you have a lens that is probably within spec but you are not happy with. I would suggest selling the lens and buying something else.

you are right, i am not too satisfied with it, but for the price i paid, i cant think of a better lens other than the 50 1.8 prime. The only other zoom lens i can think of thats better than the tamron 17-50 is either the canon 24-70 2.8 or the canon 24-104 f4. Both those lenses cost 3x of the tamron and the 24-70 lacks the 17-24 range and the 24-104 lacks the f2.8-f3.5 range.
The sharpest zoom lens i could find from looking at the charts was the 70-200 f4 IS. I was thinking to get this lens second hand to compliment the tamron since i mostly shoot portraits and i need the longer focal length, hence the reason i always max out the zoom on the tamron. But i wont sell the tamron, atleast for a while because its a hard lens to replace for the wide angle range due to the price factor

[cagenuts]

i see the opposite. The canon is sharper. The default view is the lens selection on the left and the mouse over is the lens selection on the right.

Ok here is the Tamron 17mm @ f/2.8 (first) and Canon 17mm @ f/2.8 (second).

I see the Tamron as sharper. The numbers 36, 32, 28 etc are more defined and the lines on the right of the picture are also more defined.

Corner I'll give to the Canon.

Surely?

[cagenuts]

I know the mods will get their panties in a knot over this but just to show you what I'm seeing.

[watt100]

I know the mods will get their panties in a knot over this but just to show you what I'm seeing.

sure, what anybody can see
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398

and the problem is that your image was taken at 32mm. If you look a few posts back you will see that i mentioned the softness issue i have comes in at the telefocal length of 50mm and also mostly for images taken at a bit of a distance. Your examples have not covered this scenario even once yet.
To further show you the issue, i provided the link to the charts of the tamron at 50mm f2.8 which clearly shows the softness of the lens which is especially bad at the edges which will be where the eye area is on a full body portrait orientation image. The proof is right there.
I further posted examples of my own images showing the issue on my own lens and another example at different settings which yeilded a very sharp image. The same lens, one image soft and the other very sharp. If i had a bad copy i would expect my second image to be a bit soft too.
Also in your images you have not provided any 100% crops. Please i ask you with a humble heart, go out there and take a full body, portait orientation image at 50mm f2.8 and post the image here together with a 100% crop of the eye area and dont add any sharpening in post. I would suggest shoot RAW, process it through ACR on default settings (sharpness on 25 or even zero if you dare). If your 100% crop of the eye area is sharp, then i am comming to your house when you are asleep and switching out your lens with mine

dude, you are expecting something that's probably not possible with any standard zoom! Seriously, look at all the comparison sites and "MTF" lens resolution data at places like www.photozone.de, digital picture (same focal length,aperture, etc.) Full body pics from some distance and then looking at 100% crops of the eye ? well, go to a portrait group, here's one with over 100,000 members
http://www.flickr.com/groups/theportraitgroup/

go ahead and take a look at all the full body portraits photos posted there (over 1.7 million pics) , look at the lens and camera bodies used then download a pic and look at 100% crops


here's a close to 50mm pic at f2.8 I took with the Tamron 17-50
(no tricks !)

you seem hung up on for some reason with focal ranges

XSi (450D)

f2.8
Exposure 0.005 sec (1/200) Aperture f/2.8
Focal Length 46 mm ISO Speed 1600
Exposure Bias 0 EV

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6199/6112530883_7b2c498a3d_b.jpg

oh, and try taking a pic of someone in good light (not in the shade !)

it makes a difference!

[boerewors]

Ok here is the Tamron 17mm @ f/2.8 (first) and Canon 17mm @ f/2.8 (second).

I see the Tamron as sharper. The numbers 36, 32, 28 etc are more defined and the lines on the right of the picture are also more defined.

Corner I'll give to the Canon.

Surely?


whew! i guess the longer end of the focal length is more important to me. take a look at the difference at 50mm on the tamron vs 55mm on the canon. its a huge difference! the canon wins atleast two fold over the tamron. i guess it all ends up on what type of photography you prefer. landscape, indoor wide angle stuff, the tamron is probably the better lens but for portraits where you will use the end of the zoom, the cannon is far superior but 3 times the price. in the end im not even satisfied with the canon because at that price, i would expect atleast the same results as the 24-70L
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=398&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

[boerewors]

here's a close to 50mm pic at f2.8 I took with the Tamron 17-50
(no tricks !)

you seem hung up on for some reason with focal ranges

XSi (450D)

f2.8
Exposure 0.005 sec (1/200) Aperture f/2.8
Focal Length 46 mm ISO Speed 1600
Exposure Bias 0 EV

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6199/6112530883_7b2c498a3d_b.jpg

oh, and try taking a pic of someone in good light (not in the shade !)

it makes a difference![/quote]


i would like to see the 100% crop on this one. yes 100% crops are important to me because i print alot of large prints up to 40x60 inches and the softness does show at those sizes when using the telefocal end of the tamron. see the comparison charts in the link in my previous post. its a huge difference between the tamron and canon lens at the telefocal length of 50mm. you only seem to compare the wide to mid ranges which suit you, but doesent suit my type of photography. at the end of the day im rocking with the wrong lens for my needs and youre trying to prove im wrong by showing me proof from the lower focal lengths. my original statement was that the tamron is soft at 50mm and the charts prove it, but nobody seems to want to look at the facts. i never said the tamron was soft between 17_35mm, actually i said i got good results at those focal lengths and then you come along and show me results that i already know will be sharp yet ignore what i said about 50mm softness. maybe you dont use 50mm much and thats why you dissagree. i have now proved it by showing the link to the charts in my post above. if you dont rock with the tamron at 50mm then you simply unaware of the issue.

[watt100]

i would like to see the 100% crop on this one. yes 100% crops are important to me because i print alot of large prints up to 40x60 inches and the softness does show at those sizes when using the telefocal end of the tamron. see the comparison charts in the link in my previous post. its a huge difference between the tamron and canon lens at the telefocal length of 50mm. you only seem to compare the wide to mid ranges which suit you, but doesent suit my type of photography. at the end of the day im rocking with the wrong lens for my needs and youre trying to prove im wrong by showing me proof from the lower focal lengths. my original statement was that the tamron is soft at 50mm and the charts prove it, but nobody seems to want to look at the facts. i never said the tamron was soft between 17_35mm, actually i said i got good results at those focal lengths and then you come along and show me results that i already know will be sharp yet ignore what i said about 50mm softness. maybe you dont use 50mm much and thats why you dissagree. i have now proved it by showing the link to the charts in my post above. if you dont rock with the tamron at 50mm then you simply unaware of the issue.

sorry I cannot help your "softness" but it really doesn't matter what I post does it?
you can look at the MTF "charts" e.g. www.photozone.de on the crop zooms
Or look at millions of Tamron 17-50 2.8 pics -

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=tamron+17-50+2.8&ct=0&mt=all&adv=1#page=0

Or perhaps just go ahead and buy a Canon 17-55 2.8 and get that fantastic near-L feeling!

[flowrider]

Not the greatest shot technically but I was blown away at how sharp this was. EXIF should be intact. Very little sharpening used and flash on camera bounced off a wall to the right.
http://www.stopbathimages.com/Private/New-Years-2011/i-dXp4Wqg/0/X3/IMG0186-X3.jpg

[cagenuts]

Nice image Steve but you obviously didn't read the rules posted at the beginning of this thread.

Rule number 1.
The only portraits allowed are those of hot women.

Rule number 2.
Read number 1 again.

:-)

[flowrider]

Oh man I missed those rules! Sorry about that! I'll work on that asap.

[jdmz]

Just bought this lens from a forum member. The image was shot at 17mm f6.3 iso100.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7016/6643412099_5f63c1ba62_b.jpg

[DaveKosiba]

Very nice image jdmz!

[aurora85]

shot today of my son

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7005/6644983381_387a7ba694_b.jpg

[sandeepsaman]

My few shots with tamron 17-50 non vc ....

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/9118/img3002bj.jpg

http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/3519/img2995yt.jpg

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/486/img2849ib.jpg

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/9131/img2980b.jpg

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/7752/img2891q.jpg


http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/3170/img2848cu.jpg

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/2973/img2892pm.jpg

[jdmz]

Sandeep - did you use a tripod for those shots?

[boerewors]

shot today of my son

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7005/6644983381_387a7ba694_b.jpg

congrats on the baby. I have one of those on the way as well. Very excited!
I notice you have the 50 1.8, how does the sharpness compare to the tamron @50mm?

[sandeepsaman]

Sandeep - did you use a tripod for those shots?

No ,all these pics are hand handled ..
It was on Jan 1,2012 and this place was full of crowd...
i was missing tripod there

[sandeep9868]

No ,all these pics are hand handled ..
It was on Jan 1,2012 and this place was full of crowd...
i was missing tripod there i can see the blur here, but acceptable and after knowing its hand held, it feels good that i have invested my money in right lens:)

[aurora85]

congrats on the baby. I have one of those on the way as well. Very excited!
I notice you have the 50 1.8, how does the sharpness compare to the tamron @50mm?

Thanks! Its absolutely great! As far as the lens..the Tamron is pretty sharp..I think I've lucked out with a good copy of the lens. I feel that 50 prime is sharper though and that makes sense with it being a prime. With that said its very sensitive to use and the take rate with the Tamron is much higher than the 50. Most of the time lately I've been using my 50 1.8. For 100 bucks you can't beat it. I love both of these lenses.

[lonewolfcub]

Handheld at 1/30, f2.8. The only lighting was the Christmas lights off the tree.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7162/6572039461_ed1845f9f0_b.jpg

[cagenuts]

Wow! How clear is this shot?

[0.24L]

Sorry need to ask over here, if i dont manual focus, can I still get this lens? I heard there are a lot of problems with the non-vc ones..

[ESMcBlurM3]

Sorry need to ask over here, if i dont manual focus, can I still get this lens? I heard there are a lot of problems with the non-vc ones..

I have a non-vc copy.. and I use the AF about 99% of the time - no issues here.

[LudwigVB]

I have a non-vc copy.. and I use the AF about 99% of the time - no issues here.

Same here

[boerewors]

wishing i closed the aperture a bit more for this one so i could have got all of them in focus

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7015/6605132977_b8796eb67b_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/65910479@N03/6605132977/)
IMG_9245 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/65910479@N03/6605132977/) by de fortier (http://www.flickr.com/people/65910479@N03/), on Flickr

[cagenuts]

Are they having a fight?

[mdvaden]

Thanks! Its absolutely great! As far as the lens..the Tamron is pretty sharp..I think I've lucked out with a good copy of the lens. I feel that 50 prime is sharper though and that makes sense with it being a prime. With that said its very sensitive to use and the take rate with the Tamron is much higher than the 50. Most of the time lately I've been using my 50 1.8. For 100 bucks you can't beat it. I love both of these lenses.

This week, I was shooting with the Tamron as well as my 50mm 1.8, and had to look at the file info to recall which lens took this image.

1/1600 | f/4.0 | ISO 125 | 30mm

[tomcat7886]

wishing i closed the aperture a bit more for this one so i could have got all of them in focus

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7015/6605132977_b8796eb67b_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/65910479@N03/6605132977/)
IMG_9245 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/65910479@N03/6605132977/) by de fortier (http://www.flickr.com/people/65910479@N03/), on Flickr

focus is perfect. nice shot.

[bigrig]

Used the Big Camera to take pics of the Small Camera and the new Medium Camera.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7026/6683046275_22c94498f1_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53598920@N00/6683046275/)
IMG_2533B (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53598920@N00/6683046275/) by bigrig (http://www.flickr.com/people/53598920@N00/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7022/6683047035_ec76a14f3c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53598920@N00/6683047035/)
IMG_2548B (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53598920@N00/6683047035/) by bigrig (http://www.flickr.com/people/53598920@N00/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7151/6683046431_c4651d9ed9_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53598920@N00/6683046431/)
IMG_2534B (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53598920@N00/6683046431/) by bigrig (http://www.flickr.com/people/53598920@N00/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7032/6683046663_62b54b7a63_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53598920@N00/6683046663/)
IMG_2538B (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53598920@N00/6683046663/) by bigrig (http://www.flickr.com/people/53598920@N00/), on Flickr

[LudwigVB]

The shots are very good IMHO.

How good are those little cameras?

[johnj2803]

Its Been a long time since I posted. Just want to share! :D

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7162/6678682765_7b54b9ecc7_z.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7164/6716766265_062327bea9_z.jpg

[cagenuts]

Isabella looks cute John! Love the pink flower.

[bigrig]

The shots are very good IMHO.

How good are those little cameras?

Thanks! They are pretty good - I am impressed the GF3 can get pics similar to my Canon 40D with a nice shallow DOF.

[cagenuts]

I am impressed the GF3 can get pics similar to my Canon 40D with a nice shallow DOF.

You have three girlfriends?

Wow!

[ryane67]

I just ordered one of these yesterday, I'll be replacing my 17-40L with it since Id like a little more range, and Im not planning to go full frame any time soon. I hope I'm happy with my choice. With tamron's current $25 rebate plus an amazon credit I had, total cost was something like $340 for a brand new one, not too shabby.

[DaveKosiba]

I just ordered one of these yesterday, I'll be replacing my 17-40L with it since Id like a little more range, and Im not planning to go full frame any time soon. I hope I'm happy with my choice. With tamron's current $25 rebate plus an amazon credit I had, total cost was something like $340 for a brand new one, not too shabby.

I think you'll be happy with it and you can't beat that price!

[watt100]

I just ordered one of these yesterday, I'll be replacing my 17-40L with it since Id like a little more range, and Im not planning to go full frame any time soon. I hope I'm happy with my choice. With tamron's current $25 rebate plus an amazon credit I had, total cost was something like $340 for a brand new one, not too shabby.

yep, good price

random pic -

with XSi (450D)


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7160/6743269573_02dc959807_b.jpg

[johnj2803]

Isabella looks cute John! Love the pink flower.

thanks!

[DaveKosiba]

Nice shot of the race prepped S2000!

[JDM555]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7165/6762632641_14bdb3602d_b.jpg

[F-Stran]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7016/6760577151_8f9e85b89d_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/37829497@N07/6760577151/)
A glimpse of colour (http://www.flickr.com/photos/37829497@N07/6760577151/) by Zudi (http://www.flickr.com/people/37829497@N07/), on Flickr

[bludwarf]

Hello all,

I love my Tammy unfortunately i find it too big to bring to everyday parties of lunches. What kind of prime (for the small size) would you advise for a Canon user ?

[JDM555]

Too big? Interesting, I think it's pretty small considering it's a 17-50mm f/2.8. You should see the Canon 17-55 f/2.8, it's like 3 times as big lol.

If you're on a budget and really want small, the 50mm f/1.8 is a small, good prime. If 50mm is too big and you want a wider shot, look into the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, great glass and is still reasonably sized. But it's heavy. I just compared both of them and Sigma is a thicker lens, but it is .75-1" shorter, I wouldn't be surprised if it was heavier than the Tamron.

[motofotog]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7157/6769359213_7008965a7f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/arvindm29/6769359213/)
The Boss - Suzuki Shogun (http://www.flickr.com/photos/arvindm29/6769359213/) by MotoFotog (http://www.flickr.com/people/arvindm29/), on Flickr

[jamganz]

Loving this lens!

[Inchpractice]

Hello all,

I love my Tammy unfortunately i find it too big to bring to everyday parties of lunches. What kind of prime (for the small size) would you advise for a Canon user ?

I agree with JDM it's a pretty small lens compared to most other zooms.

What are you shooting with it, people?

[bludwarf]

I agree with JDM it's a pretty small lens compared to most other zooms.

What are you shooting with it, people?

Exactly, i'm finding all zooms too big for the discretion i'm looking for :D

[efoo]

Exactly, i'm finding all zooms too big for the discretion i'm looking for :D

Hmm sounds like you want a tiny spy pen camera to take naughty photos hey? ;)

[retrotorque]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7014/6800746059_6a62ac8df2.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lachlanbird/6800746059/)
Leaves (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lachlanbird/6800746059/) by justice.design! (http://www.flickr.com/people/lachlanbird/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7033/6800445455_284e74a9c9.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lachlanbird/6800445455/)
Blocks (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lachlanbird/6800445455/) by justice.design! (http://www.flickr.com/people/lachlanbird/), on Flickr

[boerewors]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7031/6800116977_b96ce02ae5_z.jpg

[lnandi]

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ptNqMZOgoek/TyhUxfxJpSI/AAAAAAAAPEc/WANiZTcm4_8/s1024/IMG_20120126_03494.JPG

[gercon2010]

First post here, got the Tamron 17-50 and love it! Here's a pic I took today...
Shot at f20 to keep the shutter speed within sync speed @ 1/250 so I could use my external flash to light up the rock in the foreground. Flash at full power due to small apature...

[LudwigVB]

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ptNqMZOgoek/TyhUxfxJpSI/AAAAAAAAPEc/WANiZTcm4_8/s1024/IMG_20120126_03494.JPG
Beautiful picture, Inandi. Where is it?

[GregPH]

taken with new Tamron 17-50 non VC :D

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7163/6808583801_814c9e2969_b.jpg

[tomcat7886]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7014/6800746059_6a62ac8df2.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lachlanbird/6800746059/)
Leaves (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lachlanbird/6800746059/) by justice.design! (http://www.flickr.com/people/lachlanbird/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7033/6800445455_284e74a9c9.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lachlanbird/6800445455/)
Blocks (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lachlanbird/6800445455/) by justice.design! (http://www.flickr.com/people/lachlanbird/), on Flickr

excellent image quality. bw!

[lnandi]

Beautiful picture, Inandi. Where is it?

Thanks!
Its Tauplitz, Austria

[sandeep9868]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7157/6769359213_7008965a7f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/arvindm29/6769359213/)
The Boss - Suzuki Shogun (http://www.flickr.com/photos/arvindm29/6769359213/) by MotoFotog (http://www.flickr.com/people/arvindm29/), on FlickrI'm looking for a cylinder kit for this bike :)

[lnandi]

Ain't dead, just sleeping! :)

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-oE_kXDjz5oM/Ty2GfHl44MI/AAAAAAAAPNo/Ro3xEC7ecWY/s1024/IMG_20120204_03585372.JPG

[watt100]

local bar

with XSi (450D)
ISO 1600


http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6182/6041860270_007b07cdac_b.jpg

[sathee46]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/62962533@N03/6188054917/

578308

[yogestee]

Ain't dead, just sleeping! :)

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-oE_kXDjz5oM/Ty2GfHl44MI/AAAAAAAAPNo/Ro3xEC7ecWY/s1024/IMG_20120204_03585372.JPG

Love it!!!

[lnandi]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/62962533@N03/6188054917/
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=578308&d=1328590857

578308
Great one!

[louman26]

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6139/6021146852_da3679fb7a_b.jpg

[JDM555]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7161/6839796285_5e35a6e7f6_b.jpg

[rpaul]

^^^ Those clouds are gorgeous. Is that Cali? Was there in December and the sky out there is just so nice. Might sound weird, but it's totally different out here on the east coast!

http://i.imgur.com/mNDrh.jpg
17mm f/4.0

[JDM555]

^^^ Those clouds are gorgeous. Is that Cali? Was there in December and the sky out there is just so nice. Might sound weird, but it's totally different out here on the east coast!

Thanks! Yes. That is Cali. We had some rain and it cleared up around noon, produced some amazing clouds.

[samsen]

sathee46 - Love your light.

[tomcat7886]

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6139/6021146852_da3679fb7a_b.jpg

nice string of the same cars...

[Dapip]

Nice pictures guys keep it coming,mine just died on me last week,the zoom ring just keeps on rotating and its not auto focussing.need to get it repair.

[lnandi]

50mm F2.8, 50%crop
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-1W3WsyTtXMM/TzQMfqHe4bI/AAAAAAAAPOE/rVN64fqlBMI/s1024/IMG_20120128_03554.JPG