Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8

[KamSingh]

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/987/24639045wq7.jpg

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/8512/35435395kr0.jpg

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/9233/34441374fs4.jpg

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/6214/92161115sp6.jpg

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/2227/49354467fv9.jpg

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/9589/74051857an8.jpg

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/3756/38647412fw1.jpg

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/3356/99367523tn6.jpg

[joruiz]

Here's another from me, a new place to go for a walk in my city:

http://www.worx3d.com/ssp_director/albums/album-9/hr/fuente_olas_1.jpg
1/160 sec f/6.3 ISO 100 17mm

thanks,

Joel

[mrbeagle]

Joel, that picture rocks!

[joruiz]

Thank you mrbeagle!

here a few more of that series (the one above is my fav) all taken with the Tamron:

2.
http://www.worx3d.com/ssp_director/albums/album-9/hr/fuente_olas_2.jpg
1/50 sec f/6.3 ISO 100 17mm

3.
http://www.worx3d.com/ssp_director/albums/album-9/hr/santa_lucia_3.jpg
1/40 sec f/2.8 ISO 400 17mmm

4.
http://www.worx3d.com/ssp_director/albums/album-9/hr/santa_lucia_1.jpg
2.0 sec f/18 ISO 100 17mm

5.
http://www.worx3d.com/ssp_director/albums/album-9/hr/santa_lucia_2.jpg
2.5 sec f/7.1 ISO 200 21mm

Joel

[ejwebb]

Joel,

GReat photos. Any chance you can post some of the EXIF to show shot settings? Are they all handheld?

[joruiz]

I will post the EXIF tomorrow (I have to leave right now). No. 4 and 5 weren't handheld, I used different objects to stabilize the camera (I think it was the camera bag, I didn't bring my tripod).

No. 5 EXIF info:
2.5 sec
f/7.1
ISO 200
21mm

thanks

[sebr]

Joel,
These are very nice shots. I will be waiting for the EXIF.

[joruiz]

Thank you Sebastien, I added the speed, aperture, ISO and focal length to every pic :)

[Jakkin]

Might as well while I am here again :D

http://images27.fotki.com/v996/photos/3/347722/5372959/IMG_0029-vi.jpg

http://images28.fotki.com/v1031/photos/3/347722/5372959/IMG_0013-vi.jpg

[KamSingh]

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/4250/img1127kp7.jpg

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/9665/img1142zo5.jpg

[Guineh]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1337/1428968668_e57f1568c1_o.jpg

[Honeybee]

For the archive:

47mm, 1/100, f/5.6, ISO 1600
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k114/LovellaJ/Portraits/ClarkMusic.jpg

[RWE]

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/4250/img1127kp7.jpg

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/9665/img1142zo5.jpg


Nice knife! Did you make it?

[tienm23]

Nice knife! Did you make it?

Nice...Damascus Steel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_steel

[joruiz]

A couple more, I hope you like:
1.
http://www.worx3d.com/ssp_director/albums/album-9/hr/puente-santa-lucia-A.jpg

2.
http://www.worx3d.com/ssp_director/albums/album-9/hr/puente-santa-lucia-B.jpg

3.
http://www.worx3d.com/ssp_director/albums/album-9/hr/puente-santa-lucia-C.jpg

[snowrdr]

I blended 5 captures together using photomatix to get this result.

These were shot at 17mm and f/16 for 2, 1.3, 0.8, 0.5, and 0.3 seconds

http://www.pbase.com/image/86607474.jpg

[MattMoore]

^^^^^
Wow....did you use a tripd (or rock/beanbag)?

I need to learn how to use my tammy17-50 like this.

then maybe my F50fd-wielding fiance will quite showing me up :(

[snowrdr]

^^^^^
Wow....did you use a tripd (or rock/beanbag)?

I need to learn how to use my tammy17-50 like this.

then maybe my F50fd-wielding fiance will quite showing me up :(


Yes, tripod down low, plus with the mirror locked up, and I used the remote release... :D:D:D

[DerekI]

I sold it because I had 24-105L and 17-55IS also but as I sold it I missed this lens alot.

And , re-bought it last night.

The color of the lens is more vibrant than the Canons and I think this Tamorn is sharper than these canons in close foucs distance , although the 17-55IS is sharper at infinity zone.

The Tmaorn is a great lens if any one thinking of getting an EF-S17-55IS to replace it with kinda expectation for it to beat this 17-50 Tamorn hands down, I 'd say think it carefully and check all images on line from both lenses.

The Canon is not much sharper or 2 times better, and I do not even think the Canon is a better lens over all than this Tmaorn............as I said , I like the Tmaorn color better and I think this lens focuses fast enough especially on my 40D , never hunt and able to do some close-up that the Canon is not good at.

So my point is many just think a gand lens is much better than 400US lens and give others a comment like "if you can afford it, go for the Canon, you won't regret it"when the issue is discussed , but it is not the case here.

I could afford the Canon and have it but still bought the Tamorn as a day light lens.

It is not the money , the size and the color are something you need to seriously think of when upgrading your lens to the EF24-105L or 17-55IS from this , I 'd say keep it not trade this lens in for them.

As I stolen my 10-22 at BKK airport last month and needed to replace it since I shoot Ayuttya relics for some companies in Osaka, but I did not have enough money left in my lens account , so I had to sell either this or EF-S60 , I was initially thinking of selling this or 17-85IS but I sold the 60 since I haven't used it much and I haven't done any macro, I guess, I would need it.

It does not matter how great a lens is if you do not need the focal length or range...............


So for me , most useful Canon set up (I also own 3 Nikons) is like this:

1 main set:
EOS40D or 1D3 depends on your budget.
EF-S17-55IS or EF24-105L depending on your body.
EF-70-200f4L IS or 70-300DO IS I have both and love them but for me the DO is much more useful because it is black and super fast AFing and 300mm is needed when I do not want to carry my EF300f4L IS.
EF 100f2USM not needed but it is useful some times.
EF-S10-22 very useful my main lens for my work.
EF300f4L IS, needed but some times draw too much pay attention and once arrested in Burma because of this.

2 sub set:
EOS400D
EF-S17-85IS and Tmaorn17-50.
my XTI shares all other lenses with my main camera currently the 40D.

When I go travel relaly light with my Canon I bring my XTI with this Tmaorn ,EF-S 10-22..............

But often I choose my Nikon when go out light since Nikon 's got the excellent 18-200VR and 12-24.

Finally, dont think the Nikon 18-200VR like the Sigma OS crap, they are completely different kind of lenses unless you have a Nikon , you wont know it.

The Sigma OS is a really bad lens that has to deceive your camaera body to properly AF ............

Also, Sigma is not a company being trusted by most , Tamron is not like Sigma ,Tamron is a serious optical company the CZ16-80 is designed by Tamron not by CZ.

This can tell you something about all those review sites that they are all idiots and ignorant.

I mean if the name of lens is CZ, L, Nikkor or Leica rated so high but they do not even know CZ does not design or even make lenses for Sony , it is just a buiness license.

A Pnasonic Leica is not a Leica , but it is a Coshina made lens.

So do not even read those lens review sites other than real ones like William Castleman, SLRgera and the-digital-picture.

the photozone.de is a shallow site with very shallow testing (you can do that at your home , just buy the soft ware), I do take them with a huge grain of salt.

They seem like they do not know how Japanese companies' inter-relationship works, most of BRAND name lenses are made by those they look down on as off-brands such as Sigma, Tamron and Coshina, but with these names like Leica, CZ, Canon, Nikon and Sony on a lens , they do worship and rave about it.

It is so funny and never even bother the site after I read what the reviewer was talking about Sony CZ and Pana Leica..............

I think your best bet is to see as many photos from lenses you want to consider buying as possible , and ignore photozone.de.

Who cares what the reviewer thinks or says about your lens , a name can not capture anything but optics do .

Dont look down on Tamron just because it is not a camera maker , remember thoese CZ lenses in Sony mount are all made by Tmaorn and all pro TV and Movie Cameras of Sony use Tamorn lenses.

Also, these Sony Ericsson phones use Tamorn lens units.

[KamSingh]

Nice knife! Did you make it?

Thanks, it was made by a Swedish Knifemaker called Roger Falt, he goes by the username "praktis" on the knife forums.

He is usually on www.britishblades.com (http://www.britishblades.com/)

I am also a member there with the same username.

Thanks,
Kam

[KamSingh]

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/594/67540828iz9.jpg

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/45/47699052ix4.jpg

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/5365/75398468cl1.jpg

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/9955/26378191je4.jpg

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/1527/16907050xf0.jpg

[KamSingh]

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/2858/69709550gq3.jpg

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/3785/56877674ok5.jpg

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/2435/88841664ay4.jpg

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/6116/67911154uk1.jpg

[joruiz]

one more knife and I'll kill myself!! :lol:

[form]

I still like the Tamron 28-75 over the 17-50. Though most people probably prefer the wider angle, I like the extra reach; the 28-75 is the longest lens I have. I also have a 10-20 for wide angle, which covers the widest point of the 17-50.

To me, the 28-75 is a better long term investment because it is both less expensive and fully compatible with full frame sensors. The sharpness is also very good, and I'm having fun using it for a macro lens and having the subject only 1/4" from the front element @ 75mm.

[MattMoore]

The more I use this lens, the more I realize that my equipment is far more capable than myself (as a photographer).

Practice, practice, practice!

minimal PP : light USM + crop + resize
http://lh6.google.com/tenchi4u/RxP1_DxKIxI/AAAAAAAAAjo/At46_sgnNVo/s800/IMG_4216.jpg

[jupera]

Some samples:

http://rantsu.1g.fi/kuvat/Flower+Power/Wild+flowers+%28from+forests%2C+meadows+and+garden %29/ruisk1_cpp_100607.JPG

http://rantsu.1g.fi/kuvat/Flower+Power/Bushes+and+trees/aronia5_cpp_260507.JPG

http://rantsu.1g.fi/kuvat/Flower+Power/Poppies%2C+Lilies%2C+Crocuses+and+tulips/kelt-lilja_cpp_100707.JPG

http://rantsu.1g.fi/kuvat/Flower+Power/Poppies%2C+Lilies%2C+Crocuses+and+tulips/tulip1_cpp_180507.JPG

http://rantsu.1g.fi/kuvat/Tone+of+the+Fall/kukku_mustes_1851v_cpp_210907.JPG

[bajaiman]

Deleted

[pm_john]

Photos from my summer trip to Quebec City :)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2064/1526937469_abbb9334f8_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2145/1527810254_69edfa5aef_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2243/1526941431_13c24631c2_o.jpg

[MattMoore]

Still working on it (learning this lens and photography overall), but getting better.

http://lh6.google.com/tenchi4u/RxJQ6TxKIwI/AAAAAAAAAiU/MVo3O_ZdsFE/s800/leaf.jpg

[tmonatr]

I took this today while in Chattanooga.

[Eric B]

I own a 30D and the Tamron 17-50 since 2 months. First DSLR, so I've still to learn ;)
Anyway, I'm quite impressed by the sharpness of your pictures.
Crucial question: do you add post sharpness in Photoshop or so on? I think particularly of your picture of the Frontenac castle, pm_john. Or is it the resize?

My sample do not seem to be so sharp. It is ok, but not extreme sharp.
Your point of view will be welcome with the last pictures I've shoot on Sunday in my gallery (http://eric.voyage2.free.fr/phpwebgallery/index.php) like this one @F/5.6,
http://eric.voyage2.free.fr/phpwebgallery_old/galleries/Germany/08_-_Neupfarrplatz.JPG

or the firsts I've uploaded from my holidays in Poland; the one below is from the Cathedral in the Castle (directly resize from the JPEG done my the camera... and I had dust on the sensor...), F/10
http://eric.voyage2.free.fr/phpwebgallery/galleries/Poland_2007/070816_Cracow/IMG_4565.JPG

So, regarding my picture, is my sample "normal" or bad/average?

[hrl]

Looks like it's a bit OOF.

Yes, I do a little more sharpening PP.

[ninobrn99]

I just ordered the lens today..should be here by monday. Ill post pics as soon as I can to give an idea of IQ and all that goodness.

[KamSingh]

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6632/img1377to8.jpg
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/4986/img1466oy2.jpg
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6169/img1581zv7.jpg
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8484/img1582lt1.jpg
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/4551/img15810an5.jpg
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/4788/img15800ub4.jpg
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9303/img1602cl1.jpg
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/1664/img1610gw2.jpg

[MattMoore]

^^^ nice shots

I would be interested in know from here on in which version everybody received (that way I can really see if it makes a difference in terms of quality).

By version, I mean "Made in Japan" or "Made in China".

I'll start, my version is a "Japan" version, pretty much every pic in my horrible Picasa gallery (see last line link in my sig) was taken with it (I only say horrible, b/c I'm horrible; my equipment is far more capable than I).

[pm_john]

I own a 30D and the Tamron 17-50 since 2 months. First DSLR, so I've still to learn ;)
Anyway, I'm quite impressed by the sharpness of your pictures.
Crucial question: do you add post sharpness in Photoshop or so on? I think particularly of your picture of the Frontenac castle, pm_john. Or is it the resize?



Yes, I only add sharpness in PS, the picture was also resized to fit screen. I like your first pic, its very sharp!

[ninobrn99]

so heres a shot I took of my cat today. The lens just came it. I put the filter on it, put it on the camera and took a few shots. I adjusted the thresholds in PS and did a bit of USM and resized. Thats it.
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a175/ninobrn99/qt.jpg
to me it looks like there is a bit of vignetting on this one.

[DerekI]

Finally got rid of it , it is a good lens but not for serious work due to its distortion at 17mm and CA.

Now , I only buy Canon zooms and Pentax lenses primes.

if you guys love primes , should try the K10D.

Suddenly, all your primes are stabilized.

[DerekI]

For landscapes and portraits where you do not need corrected lens , you won't need the 17-55IS or 10-22 , but when you shoot in door or buildings art museum etc for sale, you will need them.

The 17-55f2.8IS is not sharper than the Tamorn but is more corrected and more resistant to flares that is what you are paying premium price for.

So if you are looking for a sharpest std zoom , stick with the Tamorn no need to pay alot more for the Canon , but for those looking for more corrected lens with less pronounced CA , then get the Canon ........you wont regret it.

[White_Marten]

I just LOOVE this lens, quick and sharp, a bit musical, but after a few sessions I started to love it!)))
Some Pics taken with it:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2197/1675757073_2fce4f5164.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1348/1436289447_4143720fe1.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1279/1304871230_ce006acd7b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1322/1342391879_daecb017ee.jpg

[gool]

I just got this lens.
It's pretty sharp and it's good having the constant F/2.8 from 17-50mm.

The AF motor is a bit whiny, but it's a nice lens. Liking it so far. :)

[david888lee]

felt like contributing to this thread, since the reason i got this lens was because of this thread and other reviews. here are a few.

1.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1078/1473189625_d40e3a4e69.jpg?v=0
http://www.flickr.com/photos/david888lee/1473189625/in/set-72157602243641617/

2.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1047/1473989532_f1b2137eaf.jpg?v=0
http://www.flickr.com/photos/david888lee/1473989532/in/set-72157602243524651/

3.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2313/1561882480_8194409d53.jpg?v=0
http://www.flickr.com/photos/david888lee/1561882480/in/set-72157601296984576/

4.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1074/1147365390_f80dc5dbba.jpg?v=1187380408
http://www.flickr.com/photos/david888lee/1147365390/in/set-72157601513120025/

[MattMoore]

Few from an air show I went to yesterday.

Aerobatics
http://lh3.google.com/tenchi4u/Ry1VJ2HWhvI/AAAAAAAAAns/yLePl5G9JNc/s800/IMG_4682.jpg

Propeller self-portrait
http://lh6.google.com/tenchi4u/Ry1bQmHWh1I/AAAAAAAAAoo/NcIxKcgkmNM/s800/IMG_4698.jpg

[mrbeagle]

wow, that airshow picture is stellar!

[Jman13]

Another quick shot of my cat. This was taken at 39mm, f/3.2, ISO 200, 1/160 with bounced flash:
http://www.jordansteele.com/forumlinks/henry_pillow.jpg

Here's a 100% crop taken one shot earlier, at 50mm, f/3.2 with bounced flash:
http://www.jordansteele.com/forumlinks/tam1750_henry_crop.jpg

[Wekkel]

Amazingly sharp ;)

[Psychobiker]

so heres a shot I took of my cat today. The lens just came it. I put the filter on it, put it on the camera and took a few shots. I adjusted the thresholds in PS and did a bit of USM and resized. Thats it.

to me it looks like there is a bit of vignetting on this one.

Man, have that looked at, looks WAY too bad

L

[lugnutz]

Owned my Tammy for a couple months now... here are a few to contribute.

http://photos.imageevent.com/lugnutz/carshow/2007autoshow/websize/RRws.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/lugnutz/carshow/2007autoshow/websize/GTR35ws.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/lugnutz/carshow/2007autoshow/websize/AutoUnionWS.jpg

lugnutz

[mmahoney]

More to show the sharpness than an artsitic masterpiece :lol:

Merry Christmas.

[chardog]

I guess mine is sharp:

17mm @f2.8
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u82/charlievunguyen/Tamron1750/1728.jpg

17mm @f2.8 full crop
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u82/charlievunguyen/Tamron1750/1728crop.jpg

50mm @f2.8
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u82/charlievunguyen/Tamron1750/5028.jpg

50mm @f2.8 full crop
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u82/charlievunguyen/Tamron1750/5028crop.jpg

f2.8 is only useful if you can use it. I'm thoroughly satisfied with this lens wide open.

[Neo_gen3sis]

http://www.jordansteele.com/forumlinks/henry_pillow.jpg




wow this looks exactly like my cat!

[smorter]

The Tamron 17-50mm was my second lens after my 50mm f/1.8 II. It is a great lens, and given how much usage I've put it through (it is my primary walk about lens and I use it for everything including trips, parties, events etc.)

It isn't the pinnacle of sharpness, but at 5.6 results are very sharp, almost the equal of the 50mm f/1.8 II I'd say. f/2.8 is useable if you don't pixel peep, even then it's soft but bearable.

This lens is a workhorse for me, I'd like to get a Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS but I wouldn't sell or retire my Tamron, they would be great backups to each other in different situations. I'm hoping the 17-55 has better IQ and is sharper, but it doesn't seem like it from what I hear. the 17-55mm does appear to give better colours and bokeh though from what I have seen, my Tamron gives me a reddish cast indoors when using direct flash (maybe I'm missing something here...could be a white balance issue)

Here's two sample 100% crops, straight off the camera (400D/XTi) STANDARD JPG (no PP)
17mm, f/8, 1/800, ISO 400:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2398/2165138925_3c78d5ced7_o.jpg
50mm, f/5.6, 1/100, ISO 200:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2052/2165929888_d96fef0dfa_o.jpg

[JoYork]

I'm so tempted by this lens. My friend has the 17-55IS and while some of his pics look amazing some of them look bland. I think most of it comes down to the photographer and what you do with the lens on the day. Some of the pics he took with his kit lens look better (no kidding!) but they were taken on a very sunny day so he stepped down to F11.

If I bought the Tamron I'd have some money left over to buy a 70-200 F4 non IS... tempting...

[dino8031]

I continue to be just blown away at how good this lens is. The AF noise is not a problem, but I keep getting hung up on the front focus ring. It takes some getting used to. Still for around $400, it's a great buy.

[sebr]

A frog at 50 mm, f/4.5 and 1/25 sec

http://inlinethumb28.webshots.com/39195/2383427090100642291S600x600Q85.jpg

[Namtaru]

Just got my Tamron last week

unedited and resized

http://namtaru.com/uploads/2008/Lightning_4.JPG

http://namtaru.com/uploads/2008/Lightning_6.JPG

[chardog]

http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee238/JakeNguyen2005/_MG_2109.jpg

42mm f/2.8 1/40s ISO 1600

I have no problem using this thing wide open.

[Psychobiker]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2297/2193366319_6cd6b8b476.jpg?v=0

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2391/2194151624_5b1fbcefbe.jpg?v=0

All wide open IIRC - no huge sharpness display, but lovely color reproduction (little/no saturation adjustment after WB)

[mikecoscia]

I don't like carrying a tripod with me so how is this camera with handheld shots? I am debating between this and the 17-55 since it has IS.

[mister wiggles]

I don't like carrying a tripod with me so how is this camera with handheld shots? I am debating between this and the 17-55 since it has IS.
almost a no brainer. u can get 3 of these tamron lenses for 1 of the 17-55. if u can afford it get the 17-55

i love mine, but i wouldn't pass up the opportunity to pick the canon lens.

[PMan]

LOVE this lens...got it for Christmas...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2048/2206422454_35c8d3979a.jpg?v=0

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2295/2206422950_53e870da8c.jpg?v=0

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2141/2206423310_a56be59904.jpg?v=0

[gool]

It's been great so far. Nice shallow dof and wide enough on a 1.6x crop sensor.

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh308/gool_77/potn/IMG_2922copy.jpg?t=1201947737

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh308/gool_77/potn/IMG_1010copy.jpg?t=1201947779

[0110x011]

This is my main lens, and the one i used for my entire honeymoon in Italy:
1.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/0110x011/2189352178
17mm 1/250th @ f/4
2.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/0110x011/2188556137
17mm 1/30th @ f/11
3.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/0110x011/2183501390
17mm 1/15 @ f/11
4.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/0110x011/2183458877
47mm 1/100 @ f/4

[da_teacher]

Took this series with the Tammy--a few wide open and the rest anywhere from 3.2 to 4.0.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=447434

[gool]

This is my main lens, and the one i used for my entire honeymoon in Italy:
1.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/0110x011/2189352178
17mm 1/250th @ f/4
2.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/0110x011/2188556137
17mm 1/30th @ f/11
3.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/0110x011/2183501390
17mm 1/15 @ f/11
4.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/0110x011/2183458877
47mm 1/100 @ f/4

Pictures aren't working for me so I can't see them.

[Mark-Of-Cain]

Love this lens! seems like lots of people do!

F/2.8
http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/3135/img3066sy9.jpg

F/4
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/5977/img3067ca7.jpg

F/5.6
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/4365/img3068ex9.jpg

It just keeps getting better:p

[snowrdr]

Here are a couple shots both at 17mm and f/11 :cool:

http://www.pbase.com/snowrdr/image/92078943.jpghttp://www.pbase.com/snowrdr/image/92078965.jpg

[pregnantcowlady]

Anyone have any concert pics taken with this lens?

[MaxxuM]

Anyone have any concert pics taken with this lens?

Not exactly concert, but still low light.... Oh, and yes, these are PPed - sorry, didn't feel like digging through gigs of photos looking for the originals but will if its really necessary ;) ... Oh, and these were with the XT not 40D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/jlozan87/bjatus.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/jlozan87/bjatus2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/jlozan87/_MG_8401.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/jlozan87/bjch.jpg

[Jman13]

One more quick shot...with polarizer. Seven Foot Knoll Lighthouse in Baltimore:

http://www.jordansteele.com/images/recent/7ft_knoll.jpg

[Captain Mantastic]

beetlejuice beetlejuice beetlejuice

on a side note, mine went in for service (after i took a dive on the ice) to replace the hood, and the hood mounting ring... $176... but they got it on friday, and had it checked out by yesterday and i authorized it today.. 2-3 weeks for repair. very nice people too. i sent it to the headquarters in new york.

[Winck]

Anyone have any concert pics taken with this lens?


The first 10 pics or so of this set (http://www.pbase.com/winck/best_of_bowie_krudttoenden_20070223&page=all) were taken with the Tamron and the 300D. Then they dimmed the light and it was time for the nifty fifty.

Use the original pic-size, the Pbases resizing isn't great. And I don't think I've sharpened them at all, so they are just resized.

Oh, and this set (http://www.pbase.com/winck/easy_parker_krudttoenden_20070217)was also taken with the Tamron and the 300D. Same venue, but a little more even light.

Knud

[pregnantcowlady]

thanks :)

[simmo1]

How does the lock switch work on this lens.whatever way i try and move it it doesn't want to budge.

[Jman13]

Zoom out and try it.

[logiclee]

How does the lock switch work on this lens.whatever way i try and move it it doesn't want to budge.


Turn to 17mm then put your finger nail on the rough bit of the lock switch and pull it towards the camera. The whole raised bit doesn't move just the zigzag bit if that makes sense.

Cheers
Lee

[cvt01]

Mine just arrived yesterday, so these are my first impressions:
It is the Japanese version. The zoom noise is not bad at all. I was worried about it because so many people complained, but I really have no problem with it. The focus seems faster than the 18-55 kit lens. I did some quick focus tests and everything looks fine - that was my biggest worry. I love the colors and the contrast of the lens. I took some snapshots of the family wide open and I like the way they came out. So far I think it meets my expectations.

[pm_john]

Here are just three of my favorite pics from the Autoshow using this lens and XTi.

1.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2036/2275625379_c900013f37_o.jpg

2.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2247/2275568121_be7e713ea2_o.jpg

3.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2329/2276361630_bb59b0d941_o.jpg

[Trique Daddi]

PM_john great work at the auto show! Those are great captures! I just got my lens a couple weeks ago and so far I am impressed. I replaced a very good copy of the Sigma 17-70 but needed the 2.8 of the Tamron.

[cvt01]

Since I can't present great photos as john, here is something for pixelpeeping:

Original f/2.8 resized to 800x600:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2034/2284035901_6a10c3286f_o.jpg

100% crops focused on the letter "T"

f/2.8
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2400/2284021989_7def0133c0_o.jpg

one more f/2.8
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2065/2284021927_ab758fbc40_o.jpg

f/4.0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2258/2284810086_bf7aa72be0_o.jpg

f/5.6
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2110/2284021809_261a1eecd1_o.jpg

[pregnantcowlady]

thought the aperature was constant on this lens?

[Dorman]

thought the aperature was constant on this lens?

It is, he's showing the same image shot at different apertures.

[pregnantcowlady]

okay. duh me. haha

:)

[gravy graffix]

wow! at the auto show!!!!!! mono pod? soooo sharp for 50/sec...

[umphotography]

we also purchased the tammy 17-50 over the canon 17-55 f/2.8 is. just a no brainer,,the optics are that good. i never was on the fence with regards to the canon 17-40L v/s the tammy 17-50. anytime i can get good 2.8 glass v/s 4.0 glass,,,,,,,,the 2.8 is gonna win everytime. i think alot of us, me included, get caught up in having L GLASS.

ive also seen some great stuff with the tamron 28-75. another great lens for the $$$. i wouldnt go as far as saying the optics are as good as my 24-70L canon,, but i would say,,pretty darn close

the thing about tamron is 6 YR WARRANTY,,,V/S 1 YEAR FROM CANON,,,,,,,,whats up with that

[pm_john]

wow! at the auto show!!!!!! mono pod? soooo sharp for 50/sec...

Thanks, they were all captured handheld. I was also surprised they were all so sharp. This is one amazing lens!!

[ettlz]

Not a very interesting image, but a 100% centre crop anyway. 50mm, f/2.8. DPP sharpness 3. This even beats my kit lens at f/8.

[joruiz]

I love lambos..

http://www.worx3d.com/forumpost/lambos/IMG_4425.jpg
http://www.worx3d.com/forumpost/lambos/IMG_4428.jpg
http://www.worx3d.com/forumpost/lambos/IMG_4431.jpg
http://www.worx3d.com/forumpost/lambos/IMG_4433.jpg
http://www.worx3d.com/forumpost/lambos/IMG_4438.jpg
http://www.worx3d.com/forumpost/lambos/IMG_4439.jpg
http://www.worx3d.com/forumpost/lambos/IMG_4447.jpg
http://www.worx3d.com/forumpost/lambos/IMG_4456.jpg

[Namtaru]

Here are a couple shots both at 17mm and f/11 :cool:

http://www.pbase.com/snowrdr/image/92078943.jpg

http://www.namtaru.com/uploads/2008/92078943.jpg

[pregnantcowlady]

those cars are absolutely gorgeous joel! wish i had one :(

i get mine today when i get home!
excited! :D


AND those waterfalls are identical.
are you guys twins?

[joruiz]

those cars are absolutely gorgeous joel! wish i had one :( I agree!

[joruiz]

and one more for the archive...

barely any processing.
http://www.worx3d.com/forumpost/santa-lucy-2008.jpg

[Namtaru]

AND those waterfalls are identical.
are you guys twins?



I was just showing how much difference it makes when you add some saturation

[pregnantcowlady]

oh. haha. i got it. :)

[snowrdr]

I was just showing how much difference it makes when you add some saturation


What else did you do? ???

[jrs-7]

I love my tamron:

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h74/jsnookes/20080223_0158copy.jpg

Just cropped and resized. No sharpening.

[preego]

Hello everyone. Great posts enjoy it alot... thanx everybody.
Thinking of getting this lens while choosing between this and sigma 18-200 OS and Sigma 17-70. Then another thing puzzle me a little...
Found out that there are 2 versions of this lens DI and DII. Read that the DII has an extra knob for manual and auto focus. And focuses quieter than the DI version.
Anyone here using a DI version? any overly noisy issue mounting on a canon (mine is a XT)? And how do you 'manual focus' without the switch?
Thanx for reading and keep on posting your wonderful pics!!

[BluewookieJim]

Just got this lens this afternoon. Was so looking forward to it that I brought my camera to work so I could try it out immediately.

Just a couple shots of some of my coworkers, no PP, just resized to meet the POTN guidelines. Exif data is intact.

[mnaz]

Here is one from my recent trip to Disney.

[blssdwlf]

Nope - there is just only one version. (You can check Tamron's website.) The 17-50 isn't overly loud, but it isn't USM silent. It uses a switch to go from manual to autofocus.

Hello everyone. Great posts enjoy it alot... thanx everybody.
Thinking of getting this lens while choosing between this and sigma 18-200 OS and Sigma 17-70. Then another thing puzzle me a little...
Found out that there are 2 versions of this lens DI and DII. Read that the DII has an extra knob for manual and auto focus. And focuses quieter than the DI version.
Anyone here using a DI version? any overly noisy issue mounting on a canon (mine is a XT)? And how do you 'manual focus' without the switch?
Thanx for reading and keep on posting your wonderful pics!!

[blssdwlf]

Hi All,

I had posted these pics in a different thread but thought they might be good enough for the archive so I'd thought I'd share:

These are some photos when I had visited the Lone Star Flight Museum in Galveston, TX.

I'm sure IS would've helped by giving me more DOF by allowing me to stop down more. Still, even at f/3.5 I liked the shots that I got.

All shot at f/3.5, ISO400, RAW. Shutter speed, 1/80s, 1/30s and 1/50s. Processed in Canon DPP, sharp 3 (default), contrast, saturation 0 to 8bit TIFF. Image processed in Bridge/Photoshop to shrink to 900px.

http://www.chung.cc/v8/files/images/2008-01-05_LoneStarFlightMuseum_0024.zc9eb0z.preview.jpg

http://www.chung.cc/v8/files/images/2008-01-05_LoneStarFlightMuseum_0106.z0d38dz.preview.jpg

Focus point is on the Corsair's cockpit:
http://www.chung.cc/v8/files/images/2008-01-05_LoneStarFlightMuseum_0116.zce0f9z.preview.jpg

Cheers,
Peter

[flashhsalf]

I have this lens as my first lens. I was wondering if any of you have hard time focusing in low light, which is my case most of the time. I'm curious what tricks do you guys so it locks quickly. I allow it to use the flash to focus and then i'll close the flash to get the picture i want. But maybe i'm not doing something right?

[blssdwlf]

I have this lens as my first lens. I was wondering if any of you have hard time focusing in low light, which is my case most of the time. I'm curious what tricks do you guys so it locks quickly. I allow it to use the flash to focus and then i'll close the flash to get the picture i want. But maybe i'm not doing something right? Depends on how low the light :) I don't have too much of a hard time (no worse than other lenses I've used) when it comes to low light. I have an XTI and found that when it gets pitch dark, I need some kind of focus assist light and best to use the center AF point so I can take advantage of the f/2.8 aper ture. I've found that the built-in flash sorta works in an emergency, but an AF assist light works much better from an external flash. Other AF assist options include a laser pointer (preferably one that can paint a vertical line), an LED flashlight, and regular flash light. Note that the AF assist light doesn't come on if you are in AI Servo mode.

Also, what you focus on makes a difference too. With or without an AF assist, try to focus on a point of light about the same distance as your focus plane, or a lit and contrasty area at the same distance or on your subject. Use your center AF point to lock focus and then recompose if necessary. If your subject isn't going to move, you can also lock focus and then flip the switch to manual focus on the lens so you don't have to refocus for the next shot. Re-focus if you or or subject moves :) There are other tricks that other people use and I'm sure someone else will share also. These tricks are applicable to other camera/lenses as well. Have fun!

[flashhsalf]

thanks for the tips :)

[BluewookieJim]

Just a couple shots I took this past Sunday morning with my new Tamron lens. This is a WWII memorial in a small park in front of town hall.

http://www.jimsavidge.com/misc/IMG_2193_a.jpg

http://www.jimsavidge.com/misc/IMG_2194_a.jpg

Exif data available.
No cropping.
-0.3 exposure comp (in RAW) on the 2nd shot.

[Jonathan Taylor]

Just bought the lens 2 days ago and tried it with one of my new hand-me-down funky backdrops...the color saturation is compared to my nifty!

[gool]

Had a chance to test a low light situation. It was pretty good attached to my 10D.

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh308/gool_77/potn/IMG_5895.jpg

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh308/gool_77/potn/IMG_5832.jpg

[DizzyV6P]

Taken at the National Air & Space Museum at Dulles, VA

One of the "Flying Tigers"

http://images34.fotki.com/v1075/photos/5/54353/5890292/IMG_3902-vi.jpg

[flipstyle72]

I just did over a thousand capture glam shoot with this lens and am THOROUGHLY happy...

Here's one nice enough to post out here

http://flipstyle.smugmug.com/photos/275604434_DrxGN-XL.jpg


YOu can check my smugmug here (http://flipstyle.smugmug.com/gallery/4662359_hbeJv) for more or the G&N section here...

[bluesmap]

im sold. im getting this lens. dumping my kit lens

[ninobrn99]

i did :) glad too!

[calitrumpet]

I have had this lens for about two months now. I just got a 30d so I am learning the whole SLR thing as time goes on. I have just been really busy so I have not had the time to shoot enough. I find the lens very good for the wide aspect, but I sometimes want more of a reach to close in on animals and birds for example. I'd say 90% of the time, the shot I see, is cabable of being taken with this lens. Sometimes I just cannot get an entire building where I need a wider lens (10-22) and sometimes I wish I had just a little more reach (x-70+).

This lens has been great though because it has told me what I like to take pictures of. My favorites so far are close ups such as the flower and lizard in the pics below, and I also enjoy landscape pictures, like the beach scene below as well.

I was thinking I might get the 24-70 or 24-105 and maybe a 10-22 lens in a few months. Anyone have any recommendations for me, with the little knowledge you have about what I like to shoot? Thanks!

Here are a couple shots that I have taken over the two months.

http://jppics.smugmug.com/photos/275630647_if45K-L-1.jpg

http://jppics.smugmug.com/photos/274810347_ERgjM-L-1.jpg

http://jppics.smugmug.com/photos/275655767_7tp75-L.jpg

[ettlz]

Just sent mine away because of front-focus and left-hand softness... can't wait to get it back.

[flipstyle72]

Just sent mine away because of front-focus and left-hand softness... can't wait to get it back.

It came to you like that or started doing it after shooting with it for a while?

[ettlz]

It came to you like that or started doing it after shooting with it for a while?
I think it probably came to me like that. I've had it three months, but only recently had the opportunity to really test it.

[chrisb321]

Just traded my 28-75 for the 17-50.
Here's a picture from the first day out of it (plus a bit of pp.....)

http://images33.fotki.com/v1119/photos/8/82699/6099520/Lincoln_Park_Zoo7582-vi.jpg

[flipstyle72]

Just traded my 28-75 for the 17-50.
Here's a picture from the first day out of it (plus a bit of pp.....)

http://images33.fotki.com/v1119/photos/8/82699/6099520/Lincoln_Park_Zoo7582-vi.jpg

now that's a great shot! nice PP too...

[sesshin]

Just traded my 28-75 for the 17-50.


How is the difference in IQ between those two lenses? I'm considering doing the opposite, going from the 17-50 to the 28-75 for more reach. I just got the 10-22 so I have the wide end covered. The only thing that would stop me from doing so would be an IQ or sharpness difference.

[sesshin]

Also, here are some shots with my 17-50
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3246/2377717113_7eb4dc4391_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2396/2371395379_1cd36073fa_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2112/2346392855_d2cdd8f661_b.jpg

[chrisb321]

How is the difference in IQ between those two lenses? I'm considering doing the opposite, going from the 17-50 to the 28-75 for more reach. I just got the 10-22 so I have the wide end covered. The only thing that would stop me from doing so would be an IQ or sharpness difference.

I thought the IQ on the 28-75 was awesome. If thats the range you want then go for it.
I have a 10-20 but I found I was really missing the 20-28 range, so I swapped to this one. I've not really used it enough to totally compare it.
One thing I have noticed is the AF is a lot noisier on the 17-50

[ninobrn99]

Also, here are some shots with my 17-50
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3246/2377717113_7eb4dc4391_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2396/2371395379_1cd36073fa_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2112/2346392855_d2cdd8f661_b.jpg
whats the exif on the second pic? very nice shot!

[sesshin]

whats the exif on the second pic? very nice shot!

Thanks! ISO 320, f/3.2, 1/60s @ 50mm

[flashhsalf]

Also, here are some shots with my 17-50
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3246/2377717113_7eb4dc4391_b.jpg





I think you should've gotten the road on the right more into the shot...it would've completed the image... nice shot regardless

[flashhsalf]

here are some of mine with this being my sole lens to shoot with.

http://uploader.ws/upload/200804/20080405__MG_2357.jpg
http://uploader.ws/upload/200804/_MG_2353.jpg

[chowmien]

I can't wait to order mine. So tempting.

[cedm]

Got mine for a week now. No opportunity to shoot outside, so here's an indoor close up shot:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3212/2404911999_9afc78787c_o.jpg

No post processing applied, except for a slight white balance correction and cropping.

And here is the 100% crop, at focusing point level (left eye):

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2228/2404912257_e9774269cd_o.jpg

Shot at 45mm, ISO 100, F6.3, exposure 1 second, on tripod and horrible fluorecent light :)

[greygoose]

i have to get this lens. for $420 it looks well good

[steve215]

Read through all 29 pages and I'm sold!

[david888lee]

Taken with the Tamron and Kenko extension tubes.

1.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3163/2412699180_891452a8e9.jpg?v=0

2.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3138/2412699392_32a9b285d0.jpg?v=0

3.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2093/2412826992_7fa9e4e5d9.jpg?v=0

[greygoose]

every chance i get i will be in this thread admiring my next lens purchase. and being that i only have two lenses right now, this will be a good lens i can finally get rid of my kit. again thank you for this thread

[DizzyV6P]

Fire Sky!

http://images21.fotki.com/v845/photos/5/54353/6121681/009-vi.jpg

http://images23.fotki.com/v858/photos/5/54353/6121681/003-vi.jpg

[greygoose]

how the hell did you do that???

[Transfer]

I just got a 30D with this lens and it's been GREAT. All the reviews are true and it's a great value.

[JBerlotti]

Shot with a 30D and Tammy, and lots of studio lights (Hensel) I think it does a hell of a job.

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f28/jberlotti/Kelly2.jpg

[ejwebb]

All shot with the Tamron...

http://ejwebb.smugmug.com/gallery/4732181_JAW3b#280225983_woZ4r

[kokakaste2]

Today i bought my 17-50, :D wasn't that easy, many shops didn't have it at all or had for sony/nikon. First impression, its awesome, shot few pictures at 2.8 and i think they are pretty sharp (comparing to kit lens and 50 1.8 ). :)

Here is one of pictures :)

http://xs226.xs.to/xs226/08164/crop401.jpg
100% crop
http://xs226.xs.to/xs226/08164/_mg_1964435.jpg.xs.jpg (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs226&d=08164&f=_mg_1964435.jpg)

17mm @ 2,8
1/200 shutter speed
640 ISO

[10-Dee-Q]

hi for those who own 50mm f/1.8 , does this tamron is sharper than the canon ?

i'm considering to sell my kit IS + 50mm and get this tamron instead, is it a wise choice ?
will i suffer from lack of IS ?
thank you .

[blssdwlf]

Hmm - depends on how good your samples are. I think my Tamron is as sharp or sharper than my 50mm f/1.8, but the Tamron doesn't go all the way down to f/1.8.

As to your 2nd question, it depends on how good your handholding skills are. The lack of IS for some could be a big deal breaker.

[flipstyle72]

Keep the 50mm and save a little longer. I think every Canon shooter should have the 50mm (1.8 or better version) in there bag. The lens is far too cheap to not have, not to mention it's quality of of photos it can produce.

My Tamron is probably equal to or better than the 50 in some ranges but it does not justify getting rid of the 50 for it.

[divinemethod]

http://divinemethod.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p660183094-4.jpg

Photo taken with Canon EOS 30D, f/32, 0.8s, ISO 100, No Flash

PP for colors (vibrance, contrast) only in lightroom.

[CaptainCutler]

I just bought one 2 hours ago at lunch. Can't wait till work is over to try it out. Best Buy has them on sale for $404.99.

[Jonathan Taylor]

From a shoot last night:

Exif is intact

[Nolleos]

A few weeks ago I bought the Tamron as a replacement for the kitlens. Here some pictures

1. Dutch windmill


http://6duuva.blu.livefilestore.com/y1p6vTJrQrNTddxEWxQxSn1mh8vQMfg0LOQfMHUE7yR8CyH7R7 9nCgFR2PscDda1f1J4371sqtNRrOosjP3ircuTw/Dutch_windmill_res-1246.jpg

2. Windmill detail
http://6duuva.blu.livefilestore.com/y1p6vTJrQrNTdchEhAfWp-8nxVxMxf3M-LgTpEqqF_aguBfAco1-aMhltwh4vtW45S8MV5YSW1S4R3FpiFjwF8hpA/Dutch_windmill_detail_res-1256.jpg

3. 100% crop

http://6duuva.blu.livefilestore.com/y1p6vTJrQrNTdf9VJc1iVLW9KFnfz9yPoBEXl1uwj1Yn5fJyOJ E3-UVZ60426gfSwDTo-xvRl6Tiw2d-ortu7x3cA/crop-1256.jpg

regards, Ton

[Wekkel]

Amazing detail. Gotta have one of these lenses ;)

[josephmckinney]

Just got mine in and can't wait to shoot on my next set of days off!

[Dorman]

If regret selling this lens, it's simply great.

[carianoff]

I'm debating this lens or the Sig 17-70. but it seems the IQ on this plus the constant 2.8 trumps the Sig. Other than that i was excited about the Macro of the 17-70, how close up can you get with Tam 17-50 ?

[Trique Daddi]

I have owned both. I had a Sigma 17-70 for over an year and got good results with it. It was a sharp copy of the lens. I just wasn't satisfied with the variable aperture. I bought the Tamron 17-50 a couple of months ago and am very pleased with it's performance. It is very sharp and the colors are good. I also have a 70-200mm non IS L so I have a standard to compare it to. Either lens will give you good results. I personally prefer the Tamron and I honestly don't see that much difference in the build quality of either the Sigma or the Tamron.

If the macro feature is apealing with the extra reach then Sigma. If 2.8 and sharpness are keys the Tamron. Either will do a great job.

Happy Shopping!

Trique Daddi

[carianoff]

Thx, for the input.

[carianoff]

I used one today with my camera in a store. Then i used a 16-35 L, got home looked at all the shots. I'm over the L as of now. I'll keep my fascination for L glass limited to the primes.

The AF isn't that noisy, just kinda high pitched. The Action on the zoom was kinda gooey.