Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8

[Lars Leber]

I took it on a longer hike with me the other day. Pano from Mount Shavano (the trail we hiked up can be seen on the lower left, Tabeguache Peak the second 14er we hiked that day is on the right) ..

http://larsleber.com/boards/2008_07/Pano1_600_High.jpg

[Daniel2000]

found this post in the ef-s 17-85 thread
I tougth it would be interesting to have it here too

after using a Nikon AF-S16-85VR for a couple of weeks , I decided to sell my EF-S17-85IS, which is actually not as bad as many L lovers say about it, it is the most unfairly trashed lens as with my Nikon AF-S18-200VR lens.

I have 3 Canon bodies(2 40D and 1 450D) and 2 Nikon bodies(D300 and D80) and I love both systems, but I can not deny the fact that Nikon makes sharper and better ranged compact zooms at cheaper prices.

the reason why I still use Canon body mainly is I like my 40D body(which can shoot 6.5f/s at 14bit raw mode no other crop camera can do this).

I do hate my 450D and 5D and am selling them for another 40D and Nikon D300 , I really wish Canon makes a great, really practical lens in real life like the AF-S16-85VR, which actually is sharper than the over priced EF-S17-55f2.8 IS and AF-S17-55f2.8DX.

I have 3 copies of EF-S17-55f2.8IS and all of them are not as sharp as my Nikon AF-S16-85VR , which is an insanely sharp lens at least my current copy, I dont need f2.8 since I use much faster primes such as Sigma 50f1.4 HSM(the sharpest lens ever made) , Nikon AF35f2D(very sharp) , Canon 85f1.8USM(very sharp), EF135f2LUSM(extremely sharp and solid)when really need to stop action(f2.8 is not at all fast enough), but I do need a good super sharp zoom covering usable range, for Canon 1.6X. I do want at least as wide and long as EF-S 15-75f3.5-f4.5ISUSM, 17mm is not really wide enough for a Canon crop like 40D , while 17mm on my Nikon is pretty wide.

Actually, I think the sharpest zooms ever made in any mount are the Tamorn SPAF17-50f2.8 and Olympus ZD12-60(really insanely sharp) much sharper than any of Canon , Nikon and Sony similar zooms I have ever used , compare these 2 lenses to the over priced Canon and Nikon 17-55f2.8s, it is sad to admit but in reality , the Oly kill them all easily,even the Tamorn is easily better optically than these Canon /NikonSony so called std zooms. I tested 4 copies of EF-S17-55f2.8IS , AF-S17-55f2.8DX and CZ 16-80........so it is not the copy I had , I have had 3 Tamron 17-50f2.8 and 28-75 f2.8 for both Cnaon and Nikon mount and I have both Canon and Nikon 17-55f2.8 , so it is not like that I can only afford the Tamron ,but I prefer it much better( much smaller , a bit sharper with better color than both Canon and Nikon lenses,much better dealing with back lit scenes and the Tamron can focus much closer than these over priced Canon and Nikon lenses).

So do not believe if you really want to get a prime quality zoom (optically not mechanically), you need an over priced and heavy L lens , not true at all , Ls are better corrected (less distorted) but not much sharper than others.

I have tested 8 Tamron lenses at many differnet stores in many different countries (Thailand , Taiwan , China , HK, France , US, Japan , Korea) and all of them are super sharp , at least as sharp as my Nikon Af-S17-55DX.

My EF-S17-55f2.8IS is sharper than the Nikon version but the Nikon Af-S16-85VR beats both and a good really good copy of the Tamron beats all of them hands down, but not as sharp as the Oly ZD12-60SWD.

Finally, the EF70-200f4LIS has gotten so many raving reviews and is a sharper lens than most of "Canon"made zooms but is just as sharp as Nikon AF-S70-300VR , which is a consumer Nikon zoom , priced much cheaper.

Actually for me , the AF-S70-300VR was the main reason I bought a D80 4 months a go.

Canon focuses on AF speed and correcting wide end distortion while Nikon focuses on pure resolution , so we can get the best of D300 or D700 resolution out with cheap Nikon zooms, but with Canon current zooms , most of Canon bodies more than 10mp out solve them clearly.

This is why many many Canon user only use primes and hate a zoom like EF-S17-85IS or 70-300IS and trash them down , in digital era , Canon or any make of lens should get lens resolution right first even at the expense of more pronounced distortion, all other things like distortion, CA , light fall off can be corrected with Photoshop or like it.

But you can never get lost resolution back in ..........so my mainly use Nikon zooms like AF-S70-300VR , AF-S16-85VR, Tamron 17-50f2.8, AF-S14-24f2.8 and Canon primes like EF-S60USM, EF135f2, 200f2.8L,85f1.8USM and Sigma 50f1.4.

Just compare the Canon EF70-300IS to Nikon AF-S70-300VR or Sony SL70-300G, you will know what I mean.


PS. many third party haters talking about how horrible Tamron QC on the 17-50f2.8 is but I personally do not believe that since I do make my own comparison and I never trust any lens review on line.

I had tried 9 copies of this lens as I said and all of them are at least as sharp as any of the EF-S17-55f2.8 ,I also tested many copies of the Canon lens.

Photozone and some other forums was the reason why I bought the over priced the Canon EF-S17-55IS when I had no problem working with my Tamron 17-50f2.8 and Canon EF-S17-85IS last year, well.

I thought there would be huge image quality improvement , I expected huge huge differnce in IQ between them but disappointingly I never saw it or even more honestly I have had to admit that I prefer the Tammy over the Canon OPTICALLY , the Canon at least beats the Nikon 17-55 DX and Sony CZ16-80 though...........

So my point is do not simply take any word from some L-lens lovers or some so-called lens review sites trashing any of so-called consumer zoom or whatever about some lens they dislike , despite of so many chart shooters complaining about the wideopen sharpenss of the EF-S17-85IS , it is actually a quite sharp lens with very good range and super fast AF, with some very careful PP , it can produce IQ similar to that of any of L or the EF-S17-55f2.8IS, but none of these Ls or EF-S17-55f2.8IS can replace the EF-S17-85IS and its versatile focal range.

Oly the Sigma 18-125OS HSM can replace it in Canon land.

Of course , the Oly ZD 12-60 is the best of you dont mind owning a couple of more mount systems.

I really want to get a EF-S17-85 mark2 , prefrably with constant f4 with IS.

Oly in-camera IS works better than other in-camera IS or SSS but Canon IS works even better.

[yogestee]

^ This is going to ruffle a few feathers of the Canon L Fanboys!!

I have always been a fan of Nikkor optics.. Their AI-S Nikkors are razor sharp and well built.. I haven't used their "new" digital optics but by all accounts are very fine lenses..

As for the Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8,, one hell of a lens..

[sebr]

^ This is going to ruffle a few feathers of the Canon L Fanboys!!

I have always been a fan of Nikkor optics.. Their AI-S Nikkors are razor sharp and well built.. I haven't used their "new" digital optics but by all accounts are very fine lenses..

As for the Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8,, one hell of a lens..

Yes, but they don't read Tamron threads ;)

[photojournalista]

Yes, but they don't read Tamron threads ;)

LOL :D :D :D

[Boily]

I love the lens :

http://i34.tinypic.com/ru7eqs.jpg

[pixel_junkie]

Killer shot^^^!

[joruiz]

Taken at f/2.8:

http://joelruiz.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/mina2-7166-web.jpg

[Daniel2000]

an other one taken last weekend at the Canadian Karting championship

http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh26/Daniel2000/Karting%20Grand-Mere%2010-08-2008/IMG_3472.jpg

[sgogula]

I love my Tamron. Not sure if these are suppose to be sized for web only for PP but this one had a 3px high pass sharpen set to soft light blend mode only.
33mm, f5.6, iso100 ceiling bounce flash.
http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb212/epatt250/Brady/bradyDT016web.jpg

uuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhh greatttttttt sharp picture and lovely kid.

[blssdwlf]

Nice :D - was that you light painting?

Taken at f/2.8:

http://joelruiz.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/mina2-7166-web.jpg

[snowrdr]

Thursday morning, 15sec at f/16 and focal length at 21mm :D

http://www.pbase.com/snowrdr/image/101739732/original.jpg

[mdw]

Beautiful shot!

I'm still deciding if I'm going to buy this lens! :p

[yogestee]

Beautiful shot!

I'm still deciding if I'm going to buy this lens! :p

Just do it!! You won't be disappointed..

[BluewookieJim]

Just do it!! You won't be disappointed..

+1.

Of the 4 lenses I have, I find this one gets the most use.

[symby]

Its tasty..

[AMSA]

The Burger yes, the fries not really :P

[symby]

It wasn't as tasty as it looks. :(

Here's one you can't eat.

[yogestee]

Its tasty..

Don't tell me you really ate this.. Or did you buy it to photograph it??

[HaroldC3]

I bought one on POTN for $335 and can't wait for it to get here this week! Should be a nice compliment to my 28-105.

[symby]

I did end up eating the burger and fries. Total mini-grease shack on Prince Edward Island. Had to eat something. :)

[pointerDixie214]

I just ordered this lens from KEH and I am pretty psyched about it! Can't wait until it gets here and I get to play!

[daica321]

Two from my friend's 17-50.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3174/2784485376_bf4599053d_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3098/2784485792_a6faf449c3_o.jpg

Feel outdoor images a little dark and contrast is worse than canon's lens :confused:. But it's really sharp and works well with indoor photos.

Do u think it's worth to upgrade to tam 17-50 from 18-55 IS ?

[mdw]

Just do it!! You won't be disappointed..

I just ordered this lens from KEH and I am pretty psyched about it! Can't wait until it gets here and I get to play!

I just ordered mine!
Hope it'll get here soon! :p

[pointerDixie214]

I just ordered mine!
Hope it'll get here soon! :p

Sweet! I ordered mine the other night and it still hasn't shipped yet! D'OH! Anyone order stuff from KEH before? I have heard good things, but this is kind of ridiculous!

[leadweight]

Just broke down and bought the Tamron 17-50 yesterday at Best Buy. One operational difference from the 18-55 IS kit lens is when shooting in low light it was OK to use the programmed exposure mode on my Xsi. With the 17-50 shutter speeds drop too low so either manual or the Tv mode is a must. This is a bit like buying a more aggressive pair of skis. You can go faster/gert better results, but you have to pay more attention or else things might be worse.

This one I took in front of my house, its something I never noticed before, ISO 200, 50mm, 1/100, f/4:http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3049/2783872367_c42578ef60_o.jpg

As an aside, there are a lot of folks who are fans of the nifty fifty posting here, hmmm.

[bminear]

im in love. just got mine today, and havent really had a chance to explore its greatness, but here is a sharpness preview, because YOU, yes those of you who dont have this lens NEED to get this lens! i had its older brother the tamron 17-35 and even it pales in comparison, WOW is all that i can say! its probably NEVER going to leave my 40d!
exif embedded in images
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2319/img00071assmartobject1vv4.jpg

100% crop

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/9993/100cropce1.jpg

[mdw]

Just broke down and bought the Tamron 17-50 yesterday at Best Buy. One operational difference from the 18-55 IS kit lens is when shooting in low light it was OK to use the programmed exposure mode on my Xsi. With the 17-50 shutter speeds drop too low so either manual or the Tv mode is a must. This is a bit like buying a more aggressive pair of skis. You can go faster/gert better results, but you have to pay more attention or else things might be worse.
I don't get this, what do you mean?! :D


http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2319/img00071assmartobject1vv4.jpg


If there is one thing I HATE, it is vignette!! You can see it a bit in this one, and I really hope I don't have it a lot with my lens...

[bminear]

I don't get this, what do you mean?! :D



If there is one thing I HATE, it is vignette!! You can see it a bit in this one, and I really hope I don't have it a lot with my lens...



sorry man. the vignette wasnt the lens, it was accidental in the raw processing, i didnt have much time and ran it through a workflow. here is the original image without vignetting!

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/5369/img00071assmartobject2kr8.jpg

[mdw]

sorry man. the vignette wasnt the lens, it was accidental in the raw processing, i didnt have much time and ran it through a workflow. here is the original image without vignetting!

THANK GOD!! :lol:

Nah, no kiddin', I have read that this lens can produce some vignette on some occasions. Any experiences?

[bminear]

THANK GOD!! :lol:

Nah, no kiddin', I have read that this lens can produce some vignette on some occasions. Any experiences?



i have only had it for about 6 hours, and ive taken 60 or so pictures, and havent seen a bit. i have researched it for a few months and the only cases of vignette i saw were from a full-frame camera. i can sing nothing but praises about this lens, it is extremely sharp. way sharper than i even anticipated. and the constant 2.8 aperture makes it comparable to the canon 17-55 IS lens. best $400 i ever spent!!

[mdw]

Can someone explain me how the constant 2.8 aperture works? I know its good but don't really understand how it works... :o:o

[leadweight]

[quote=mdw;6153000]I don't get this, what do you mean?! :D


Regarding my statement that the Tamron 17-50 takes extra TLC to achieve its potential and exceed the performance of the 18-55 IS Kit lens, perhaps you never tired a really hot pair of racing skis and found out how much more effort they took than shorties.

What I noticed is that the programmed exposure mode on the Xsi tends to be optimized for the kit lens. With it any dumb bunny will do OK. The P mode coupled with auto ISO tends to result in lower shutter speeds in low light than would be optimum. Also the wide aperture has less DOF, so more attention to focusing is necessary.

None of this is earthshaking, and its really photography 101, IMO. Most who participate in this forum do not use the P mode (or worse yet the dreded green box) anyway, and many use the central focus sensor and reframe. I think I just got lazy with the kit lens.

My advice is if you are really lazy, or completely new to photography, keep your kit lens until you get the hang of things. For the rest of us, the 17-50 is a nice upgrade.

[Daniel2000]

Can someone explain me how the constant 2.8 aperture works? I know its good but don't really understand how it works... :o:o

a lens in the lower budget or i.e. kit lens have a maximum aperture varying depending at what end of the focal length you are at
for exemple, my 17-85mm has a max aperture of f/4 at 17mm but max aperture of f/5.6 at 85mm
instead, the Tamron 17-50 here, has a wider aperture of f/2.8 and the max aperture at all focal length is f/2.8
hope it answer your question... ;)

[mdw]

...
What I noticed is that the programmed exposure mode on the Xsi tends to be optimized for the kit lens. With it any dumb bunny will do OK. The P mode coupled with auto ISO tends to result in lower shutter speeds in low light than would be optimum. Also the wide aperture has less DOF, so more attention to focusing is necessary.

None of this is earthshaking, and its really photography 101, IMO. Most who participate in this forum do not use the P mode (or worse yet the dreded green box) anyway, and many use the central focus sensor and reframe. I think I just got lazy with the kit lens.
...

Thanks! Now I get what you meant! :) To a certain extend I think you will experience this stuff with every new lens you'll buy. The Canon 100mm f/2.8 I bought 'forces' you to take pictures differently than before as well. One the one side because it has more capabilities that way, on the other just because it is necessary! :D

Fortunately, most of the time I'm shooting manual. Depending on the lens and subject I also focus manually. So, I'm not too worried about your comment any more! :p It's good to read these experiences and findings from others with the same lens!

hope it answer your question... ;)
Yes and no... :D
What I meant was how it works internally. What makes the lens to have a f/2.8 over the whole range? Quality of the glass, different size, more glass etc....

[Daniel2000]

now there you got me, I think it's definitely the way it's built over the quality (Of course they normally have good glass in that kind of lenses)
I would guess its where they placed the diaphragm in the lens that make it to keep the same aperture
but hey, I never opened a lens to check :p
and we are going off subject ;)

[HaroldC3]

My guess is it has to do with the size of the glass, especially the rear element.

[pointerDixie214]

I got mine today and all I can say is WOW! What a great lens!!!!

So to everyone debating between this and the Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8, I did a comparison test here. Fairly thorough with lots of images and video/audio...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=6157506#post6157506

[smashing.poot]

This lens has to be the best value for money. The colors, sharpness, build, hood are superb. Makes a great walk around lens. If I have to crib on something, then it has to be the not-so-good bokeh rendition. Pretty harsh I should say. Or maybe, the 85 1.8 has upped the expectations. :rolleyes: But yeah, for $400 it is already too much value :D

[HaroldC3]

Well I got this lens and mine is nice and sharp and spot-on focus. It pretty weird going from 28mm to 17mm on a crop body. 17mm seems so wide!

Anyways, I have a couple samples below wide-open at 50mm untouched 100% crops. I will have a good test tomorrow at a neighbor's kids birthday party.

[pointerDixie214]

Yeah- I was super impressed by this lens.

However, I say the Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 is still a better bang for the buck. (If you can deal with a 24mm on the wide end....) I will be keeping them both and using the 17-50 for the 17-30mm range, and the 24-60mm for the 30-60...

[HaroldC3]

Here are a couple starscapes I did with this lens.

#1: ISO3200, 30s, f2.8, 17mm

#2: ISO3200, 20s, f2.8, 17mm

[efoo]

Wow, is it true our sky has so many stars if it isn't blocked by the atmosphere (and pollution)?

Great pics btw.

[ronmayhew]

Got an aerial shot the other day:
http://ronmayhew.smugmug.com/photos/350892436_QRJuv-M.jpg (http://ronmayhew.smugmug.com/photos/350892436_QRJuv-X2.jpg)
40D and Tamron 17-50

[pointerDixie214]

Great sky shots! This is why I like being in the country. Amazes city people when they find out how many stars you can actually see!

[pointerDixie214]

Here's a couple from today with the new Tammy. Man I am LOVING this lens.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b390/pointerDixie214/IMG_4436.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b390/pointerDixie214/IMG_4450.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b390/pointerDixie214/IMG_4469.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b390/pointerDixie214/IMG_4473.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b390/pointerDixie214/IMG_4474.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b390/pointerDixie214/IMG_4475.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b390/pointerDixie214/IMG_4484.jpg

[efoo]

These photos really impress me.

I currently have Sigma 18-200mm OS lens + Canon 50mm MkII lens on my 400D. If I decide to get this Tamron lens, would it be too much of an overlapping in term of zoom range?

[vinunleaded]

How can you get so close to those objects? Mine doesnt focus at all when i try to do extremely close up focusing. Did you use an extension tube or something


Here's a couple from today with the new Tammy. Man I am LOVING this lens.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b390/pointerDixie214/IMG_4436.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b390/pointerDixie214/IMG_4450.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b390/pointerDixie214/IMG_4469.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b390/pointerDixie214/IMG_4473.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b390/pointerDixie214/IMG_4474.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b390/pointerDixie214/IMG_4475.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b390/pointerDixie214/IMG_4484.jpg

[gool]

How can you get so close to those objects? Mine doesnt focus at all when i try to do extremely close up focusing. Did you use an extension tube or something

You need to zoom to 50mm to shoot more "macro" style. Unfortunately it doesn't do macro well.

[pointerDixie214]

These were shot at 50mm, mostly manual focus to get it close, then auto focus to lock it in. I think it does a great job at close up focusing, but not macro, that's for sure...

[yogestee]

These photos really impress me.

I currently have Sigma 18-200mm OS lens + Canon 50mm MkII lens on my 400D. If I decide to get this Tamron lens, would it be too much of an overlapping in term of zoom range?

Probably efoo.. I have the Sigma 18-200mm non OS which is a great walk around lens but the image quality and the speed of the Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 leaves the Sigma for dead..

I'm only using two lenses now,, the Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 and the Sigma EX 50-150mm F/2.8 APO.. I shoot mainly street candids and documentary pics.. I have the Tamron mounted on my gripped 350D and the Sigma 50-150mm F/2.8 mounted on my gripped 20D.. I find this is a wonderful combination for my work..

[mdw]

Hi guys!

I'm still waiting for mine to arrive! :p

How is the distortion if you shoot at 17mm and up close? :) Could yield some interesting shots.

[pointerDixie214]

Here's a couple more from today. I swear, this lens is every bit as sharp at f/2.8 as my 70-200mm f/4L is at f/4. Scary sharp. I am really getting to love this lens BIG TIME! I know my Sigma 24-60 produces some amazing results, but I never had the confidence in it that I do with the Tamron 17-50...

All images at f/2.8

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b390/pointerDixie214/IMG_4509Medium.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b390/pointerDixie214/IMG_4510Medium.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b390/pointerDixie214/IMG_4511Medium.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b390/pointerDixie214/IMG_4514Medium.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b390/pointerDixie214/IMG_4517Medium.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b390/pointerDixie214/IMG_4520Medium.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b390/pointerDixie214/IMG_4519Medium.jpg

[pointerDixie214]

Here's a 100% crop from the last one.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b390/pointerDixie214/IMG_4519100crop.jpg

I wish I could post the high res images. In the RAW files you could literally count every single hair within the clear DOF... I am in love! ;)

[Daniel2000]

here one taken the closest I could from the monitor to show the distortion :p ;)
not so much noticeable further away

http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh26/Daniel2000/IMG_6198.jpg

[mdw]

here one taken the closest I could from the monitor to show the distortion :p ;)
not so much noticeable further away

http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh26/Daniel2000/IMG_6198.jpg

LOL! :D
That's another way to quote! ;)

I'm still waiting anyways, hope it'll arrive this week! :eek:

[mdw]

Whoooh!! I received mine like an hour ago!! :D
I ordered it in the UK and received it in a box with, no less than, 32 (!) post stamps on it! :lol:
It is a lot heavier and therefore feels better build than the Canon 18-55mm (which it is going to replace)

Made some quick photos but nothing interesting enough to share (YET)

:!: I find the autofocus REALLY noisy, some sort of high pitched noise.
Do you guys have the same?

:!: Also, I read everywhere that the lens should be great for low light and indoor photography. I made some shots outside in auto mode, but found that the flash is used very fast. Its really cloudy, but the light is quite bright really.
So, good for low low light? I placed the Canon 18-55mm kitlens back on the camera and made a view shots, but the flash is used as well...:!: Zooming, though, is quite heavy. It doesn't really turn easily. Don't know if I like that or not. Time will tell... :)

I'm off to shoot some pics!! :cool:

[symby]

Yes the AF is rather noisy. That's normal.

I don't quite understand what you mean about the flash being used outside. Is the camera flipping up the flash for you? I suppose it could do that if you are trying to focus on something with low contrast. 2.8 isn't a huge leap from the 3.5 that the kit lens offers, but I can't really see why the flash would pop up when you are outside during the day (kit lens or not).

The zoom ring will loosen up a bit as you use it, but not much. You'll get used to it.

[yogestee]

Roger,, the AF is noisey but not too intrusive.. Luckily the little Tamron only turns through 45deg from minium to infinity focus.. The shutter going off on my 20D is louder than the auto focus on the Tamron..

The zoom ring on mine is tad stiff but it should loosen up with time.. The zoom ring on my Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 was also a bit tight when I got it 2 years ago but now feels really smooth,, a pleasure to use..

I'm sure you will get some great pics out of your new purchase,, enjoy..

[mdw]

Hi,

Thanks for the comments guys!

Is the camera flipping up the flash for you?
Yeah, and it wasn't a very dark object. Anyways, it'll be all right, I'm sure! :)

Luckily the little Tamron only turns through 45deg from minimum to infinity focus..
Yeah, that's when you really hear the noise! :D But with normal focussing it isn't very anoying!
But I wouldn't do wildlife photography with it (apart from it not being a tele-lens :) )

[mdw]

Whoohoow! First shot of the doggy with the Tamron 17-50mm!! :D
It's way sharper than the Canon 17-55mm which it is replacing!

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/9831/img3079ar9.jpg

[michaelnel]

Here's one of my buddy Chico that I captured this morning. Hand-held, 1/100 @ f4, ISO 400, 50mm. Right out of the camera as a jpg, resized to 800x533. Would have been sharper, but he was moving around alot.

http://home.comcast.net/%7Emichaelnel/chicowindow800.jpg

100% crop from above:

http://home.comcast.net/%7Emichaelnel/100crop.jpg

[borism]

Hi everyone
I pretty new here, and being looking at all you amazing pictures
Not long ago a got My XSI and Id like to upgrade my kit lens 18-55IS

Would you consider the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 a mayor upgrade to the Kit lens? Do you miss the IS? or the faster aperture makes up for it?
Obviously, the huge difference would be at 50mm where the kit can open only at 5.6 and the Tamron will still take pictures at 2.8

Any toughs?

thanks:)

[michaelnel]

Would you consider the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 a mayor upgrade to the Kit lens?

Yes. It doesn't mean I make better photos with it, but the lens itself is a major upgrade.

Do you miss the IS?

I sure wouldn't *mind* having IS, but at the focal length range of the 17-50 I can live without it.

I love having IS, but I need it a lot more on my 70-200 than I do on the 17-50. The fast aperture and shorter focal length make the 17-50 much easier to hand hold.

[borism]

understood;)

thank you for your comment

I have the 70-200 f4 non IS and would love it to have IS

[churner]

here' are a few shots i took with this lovely lens
http://fc03.deviantart.com/fs37/f/2008/249/3/a/Hort_Park___5_by_churner.jpg

http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs36/f/2008/249/0/c/Hort_Park___1_by_churner.jpg

http://fc05.deviantart.com/fs37/f/2008/249/5/b/Hort_Park___2_by_churner.jpg

Note: i had a CPL filter on due to the bright weather.

you can find more @ my deviantart : http://churner.deviantart.com/

[vinunleaded]

did you crop the pictures? no way you can get that close to the flower. did you use an extension tube?

[gool]

did you crop the pictures? no way you can get that close to the flower. did you use an extension tube?

They could be crops, but if you zoom in and shoot at 50mm, you can get quite close. Not macro close, but close.

[St1ll]

They could be crops, but if you zoom in and shoot at 50mm, you can get quite close. Not macro close, but close.
27cm is the minimal focus distance.
And yes (answering to vinunleaded), you can get that close!
I've got some similar shots too

[bad karma]

beautiful shots churner!

[Raymond Lin]

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/3584/img5776ff0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/1756/img5969lh5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[symby]

Just a couple fun ones.

[HaroldC3]

I couple of my kiddo from this weekend. I'm really starting to enjoy this lens.

[churner]

did you crop the pictures? no way you can get that close to the flower. did you use an extension tube?

no i did not crop them.and you can definitely get that close.



bad karma: Thanks :D

symby:Nice water droplets on the leaves.

HaroldC3:love the shot on the right.

[Redlineracer12]

I <3 my 17-50 :cool:

This one was taken with a Tiffen CP. Handheld too, well I was laying on the ground I guess. :)

http://www.shineyphotos.com/images2/IMG_7329copy.jpg

Exif:
Camera Model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTi
Image Date: 2008:08:31 15:07:30
Focal Length: 17.0mm
Exposure Time: 0.013 s (1/80)
Aperture: f/8.0
ISO equiv: 100
Exposure: Manual

[ESMcBlurM3]

I have the 28-75/2.8, and I feel I'd like to swap it for the 17-50 version as I'm using a 20d with a crop sensor.

Any advice for doing this, where to do it? Would it be a straight trade?

TIA

[snowrdr]

Here are a couple at 20mm and 17mm respectively (also used a circular polarizer to help with the bright sunlight)

http://www.pbase.com/snowrdr/image/102858043/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/snowrdr/image/102858064/original.jpg

[B.Dylan]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3223/2875306696_482c45ac6d_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3149/2875305564_fe66505466_o.png

[Blazin]

Just got a chance to really try my 17-50 out this past weekend.. love it.

[jdg371]

I love this lens!

Shot at 17mm
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3008/2883333545_90c9267837.jpg

[cvt01]

^^^ I know this one!!! St Augustine right?!!! What did I win? :D

[just12]

Hi!
Here's mine:
40d, Tamron17-50 @50mm @ f/2.8 (shot through window glass)

http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/483/baranekmq9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

crop 100%:
DPP, sharpness=7

http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/9054/baranekcropnd3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[The-great-328ic]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3112/2890432209_2628dc1cc1_b.jpg



http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3208/2890497331_881bc4ca59_b.jpg

[DerekRob]

Just purchased this lens this week, took it out with me on a walk with the good wife to a local park and got a couple of shots, I think Im going to really become best of buddies with this baby.

P.S This is the first time posting any pics for me so I hope their ok.Oh wow they actually look like owner and pet :)

Scary hehe.

[Lars Leber]

From this weekend ..

http://larsleber.com/blogsites/larsleber/photos/rmnp_2008_09/IMG_2445_800.jpg

[ESMcBlurM3]

From this weekend ..



Great shot! What's the exif on that one? Also, on general landscapes shot like this, what is your focus point? I have a tough time picking the closest focal point, the deepest landscape, or the sky.

[12mnkys]

Taken with the 17-50

http://mskehle.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p458902811-5.jpg

Exif:
Focal length - 22 mm
Aperture - f/2.8
Exposure - 1/160 @ f/8
ISO - 100

[DerekRob]

My contribution.

I have more from my tamron lens but I don't have permission to post them. But you can guess my photo shoot was of my 1 year old nephew's first punken patch trip.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y98/Docpeplvr/Urban%20Life/IMG_1367.jpg

[12mnkys]

man those are some big pumpkins!

[DerekRob]

man those are some big pumpkins!not really, You should see the big ones, they're huge.

[demar727]

whelp..just bought one yesterday.. thanks to this thread..lol

i cant wait to start using it :)

[DerekRob]

whelp..just bought one yesterday.. thanks to this thread..lol

i cant wait to start using it :)You are going to fall in love with it.

You may even want to use it as your main walk around lens :)

[12mnkys]

It is now my main walkaround! I am overly impressed with the Tammy...

[DerekRob]

It is now my main walkaround! I am overly impressed with the Tammy...Very cool. You know you will have to show us some examples :)

[12mnkys]

see post #688 in this thread...

also:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=576935

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=576932

[demar727]

got the lense..and wow.. that is all i can say

[drewborn]

Hello All! I just purchased this lense and wanted to know if there is some kind of test that I can perform that will verify if I have a sharp copy or not? I am new to photography and have been taking alot of indoor low light pictures where the image is blurry. Thanks

[RRitch]

If you are shooting indoor low light without a flash, odds are that you are at a low shutter speed and getting camera shake. In order to avoid shake, you shutter speed should equal your focal length, i.e at 50mm your shutter speed should be 1/50. Then take into account that with an APS-C sensor with a 1.6 crop you may need as fast as 1/80 to avoid shake. Now this is a general rule of thumb, some can stay steady at much slower speeds while others need faster shutter speeds. If your shutter speed is dropping below an acceptable speed to hand hold, your options are to increase the ISO, use flash, or use a tripod/monopod.

[just12]

few mine:

1. f/4.5, 10s
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/1750/mg7828ajk5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

2.
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/6484/img4703aat8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

3.
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/2236/img4773agh0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

4.
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/2017/mg7936ark3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[tangy1]

Picked up mine today after reading all the great reveiw's. Now I have to wait till Sunday to try it out.

[mdw]

I bought this lens a few weeks ago. I haven't been able to shoot some landscapes with it, but here are some portrait shots.

I like this lens very much although it makes a hell of a noise when focussing... :)

1.
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/5382/img4006cropzc1.jpg

2.
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/4817/img3947id3.jpg

3.
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/2933/img3934pu5.jpg

4.
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/3844/img39844ne1.jpg

[bad karma]

Roger the last shot is phenomenal! I quite love the first one as well, but the last just stands out for some reason

[luno]

Definitely one of my favorite lenses.

A few of my recent favorites pulled off flickr
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3225/2831519167_ed9c4119f5.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3291/2790606496_fbcf881366.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3213/2756340054_bbcb4141a0.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3082/2755447699_a041605929.jpg

[mdw]

Roger the last shot is phenomenal! I quite love the first one as well, but the last just stands out for some reason
Thanks! :)
I want to focus a bit more on model photography the coming months. This actually was my first serious try at model photography. We went to a nearby city (Utrecht, the Netherlands) and kept our eyes open for a suitable location...

[bad karma]

Thanks! :)
I want to focus a bit more on model photography the coming months. This actually was my first serious try at model photography. We went to a nearby city (Utrecht, the Netherlands) and kept our eyes open for a suitable location...
You have a bright future. I suggest opening up a modelmayhem.com profile in case you don't already have one! Great resource

[mdw]

Thanks again! :D
I do hope to make a living with photography someday... It's might make a good mix with my education and travel photography...

I feel it would be a little too early though to open a modelmayhem account...
I'll practice on others first! :p

[drshottest718]

I just got this lens yesterday :-D How does it perform in lowlight conditions? I haven't used it under those conditions yet...

[Tessa]

Yesterday was the first time I used my new Tammy for action shots - absolutely no complaints :)

Tamron 17-50 + 40D, dark(ish) forest and one old school rally truck:
http://recce.pri.ee/album144/saare626.jpg

[DerekRob]

Yesterday was the first time I used my new Tammy for action shots - absolutely no complaints :)


Tamron 17-50 + 40D, dark(ish) forest and one old school rally truck:
http://recce.pri.ee/album144/saare626.jpg
That's really blurry mate, but it's a good starting point.

[yogestee]

That's really blurry mate, but it's a good starting point.

DerekRob,, the subject has been panned.. Naturally you'll get some "bluring"..

[blssdwlf]

That's really blurry mate, but it's a good starting point.

I dunno, the OP captured the panning movement down pretty well with the logo nicely in focus.

[Tessa]

That's really blurry mate, but it's a good starting point.
Like others said, that's a panned shot, not parallel with the car and shutter speed of 1/80 - of course you get blur, but the focal point (logo) is sharp and the lens could keep well up with the moving vehicle.

[just12]

C40, 20mm(cropped), f/6.3

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/3597/mg0225bhu3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Raivyn]

Anyone have issues with the camera not adjusting the ISO correctly with this lens? I took it out for the first time with my XT, and a bunch of my photos were over exposed, even though I had set my camera to apeture priority. I switched to my 17-55 on the XT, and the ISO changed appropriately. If I have time, I'm going to try the Tamron on my 40D to see if the ISO still doesn't adjust w/apeture priority.

At first I thought it was my XT, but after switching lenses, that doesn't appear to be the case.

[DerekRob]

Thanks guys, Then it turned out to be a good pan.

[srsuser]

I have a question guys, would this lens do fine on a Nikon D80 in terms of how close it can take pictures without being blurry? for example i want to take a picture of a cell phone to put on ebay, will it take the picture up close? because i have a olympus for right now w/ the 40-150 lens, and it can't focus when its shooting up close

[DerekRob]

I have a question guys, would this lens do fine on a Nikon D80 in terms of how close it can take pictures without being blurry? for example i want to take a picture of a cell phone to put on ebay, will it take the picture up close? because i have a olympus for right now w/ the 40-150 lens, and it can't focus when its shooting up closethe lens shouldn't be able to tell what camera body it's on and should perform the same as if it were on a canon.

[kruang]

:D b Here is my. Resize and sharpen once.

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/4852/img7303asd0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/4167/img7029afi0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[DerekRob]

kruang, In the second how did you get the shot blurry but yet the kid not blurry?

[bad karma]

^ The shot itself is not blurry, the plates are definitely in focus

[kruang]

kruang, In the second how did you get the shot blurry but yet the kid not blurry?

If you refer to the background, it is window blind that had been pull down to block the sun light. I was looking around at that time and I saw her sit still, so I just took a shot. :eek:

[DerekRob]

kruang, very cool :)

[srsuser]

" i sound like a bafoon"

lol

[DerekRob]

" i sound like a bafoon"

lolDon't even go there!!!!

It's not my falt we got people who can change some one's title in a rude way and get away with it.



I don't even know any admins so I can't raise a stink about it.

[The-great-328ic]

I'm selling mine for 345 shipped if anyone is interested

[DerekRob]

I'm selling mine for 345 shipped if anyone is interestedHow come you are selling yours?

[srsuser]

Don't even go there!!!!

It's not my falt we got people who can change some one's title in a rude way and get away with it.



I don't even know any admins so I can't raise a stink about it.

I changed it back for you. ;)

[srsuser]

I'm selling mine for 345 shipped if anyone is interested

Nikon Mount? :D

[MEP]

I'm selling mine too:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=582214

It's a GREAT copy, very sharp.

[ESMcBlurM3]

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb35/emcbane/Night%20Wash/IMG_4189_1.jpg

[srsuser]

wash the e36 lol

[samurairx7]

it goes well with the background

[ESMcBlurM3]

wash the e36 lol

:rolleyes:

I was washing it. Hence the rusty rotors and water...
;)

[amaphiyarden]

Got the lens > Happy!
The tip of the lens is rocking back and forth... Not sure if its effecting image quality...

[The-great-328ic]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3145/2959809745_2822fb9600_o.jpg

lens is still for sale :D

[srsuser]

what lens are you upgrading for ?

[The-great-328ic]

canon 17-40

I rarely shoot indoors, i know i will lose an extra stop, but don't really need it. And I love the colors the 17-40 produces. Both lens are sharp, but I like the colors better on the 17-40

[caiguar]

got mine today, i'll start to contribute as soon as work lets me. Test shots taken today look good.

[Redlineracer12]

http://www.shineyphotos.com/images4/IMG_8472copy.jpg

[Transfer]

Some crop comparisons from last weekend:

Partial crop
Exposure: 0.001 sec (1/2000)
Aperture: f/2.8
Focal Length: 40 mm
ISO Speed: 250
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3269/2967929115_410107338e_b.jpg

100% crop
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3188/2967929177_2ea7f37ac2_o.jpg


Partial crop
Exposure: 0.001 sec (1/1000)
Aperture: f/4
Focal Length: 20 mm
ISO Speed: 250
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3288/2967929355_0953329d22_b.jpg

100% crop
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3156/2968773394_043fd12c18_o.jpg

I believe I will be keeping this lens. :)

[shingo43]

Do I get a sharp copy of it?

I used flash
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f317/shingo43/IMG_0272_1.jpg
100%
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f317/shingo43/1.jpg

another one
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f317/shingo43/IMG_0253_1.jpg
100%
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f317/shingo43/2.jpg

I bought it 2nd hand, is it a sharp copy? should I keep it or sell it?

[srsuser]

Someone take a shot at f/22

[digger58]

I hope everyone does not mind, but I blamed you for making me buy the lens today. So if my wife calls.....

[yogestee]

Someone take a shot at f/22

Why??

[mehran.mo]

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/9106/mg0001xp1.jpg

[SwtSarina]

What type of filter do you guys recommend? I'm a newbie and I'm thinking about purchasing this lens but I have no idea what filter to get! =\

[Coppatop85]

Depends on what you are shooting. Get a UV filter for protecting the front element of the lens (I recomend Hoya filters) . Get a circular polarizer if you want to add contrast/remove glare/enhance skies, get a neutral density filter if you want to do long exposures in the day.

[SwtSarina]

ya but what MM?? I'm so lost! a 52mm uv filter?

[mehran.mo]

67mm

[Coppatop85]

this lens has a 67mm thread.