got the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4...sample pics

[willg]

just picked it up today for $520 - 20 for rebate

here is a sample
http://www.spideronthefloor.com/deck1.jpg
and 100% crop no sharpening
http://www.spideronthefloor.com/deckfull.jpg

seems pretty good in terms of color and sharpness to me..what do you guys think?

[Camo 757]

I think its nice, but you paid too much. Bought mine yesterday for $369 @ Ritz/Wolf Camera

[condyk]

Second picture is a bit fuzzy. Have you sharpened the first one? It looks Ok.

[Andy_T]

Second one looks ok to me for a 100% crop straight out of the camera ... what aperture was used?

- Are you talking about the Tamron 28-75/2.8?
- Are you talking US-$ or some other currency?

Best regards,
Andy

[CyberDyneSystems]

..what do you guys think?


I think we'd love to know what lens you are talking about :lol:

[willg]

i completely forgot to mention...its the 17-35mm f/2.8-4

[jfrancho]

It helps if you post the data along with the focus point. I looked at the EXIF, and see that this was taken at f/11, 1/50 sec., at ISO 200. I'm going to wager that the 100% crop wasn't the focus point. If the focus point was the support in front of the dinette set, then I'd guess it is about 10 feet away. Using a DOF calcualator reveals that everything about 3' to infinity should be reasonably sharp. You didn't say whether this is a sharpened image, but I'd guess it isn't, in which case I'd say relative sharpness is fine. Pictures like this aren't really good measures of sharpness as there is an exposure issue with the sky and trees and too much clutter in the depth range. When testing a lens, try to define specifically what you are testing and limit the variables. But anyway, congrats on your purchase (which I can only guess is a 17-35 f/2.8?). Apply some USM to lightness channel, and pictures made with this lens should be fine.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Shots do look great.. colors are deep and sharp too! :)

Title has been edited with the specifics of lens :)

[willg]

It helps if you post the data along with the focus point. I looked at the EXIF, and see that this was taken at f/11, 1/50 sec., at ISO 200. I'm going to wager that the 100% crop wasn't the focus point. If the focus point was the support in front of the dinette set, then I'd guess it is about 10 feet away. Using a DOF calcualator reveals that everything about 3' to infinity should be reasonably sharp. You didn't say whether this is a sharpened image, but I'd guess it isn't, in which case I'd say relative sharpness is fine. Pictures like this aren't really good measures of sharpness as there is an exposure issue with the sky and trees and too much clutter in the depth range. When testing a lens, try to define specifically what you are testing and limit the variables. But anyway, congrats on your purchase (which I can only guess is a 17-35 f/2.8). Apply some USM to lightness channel, and pictures made with this lens should be fine.

hm...good info thanks..yeah that was one of the first shots i took with it...i guess i can do some more serious testing sooner or later. the real test is what they look like in print

[willg]

Shots do look great.. colors are deep and sharp too! :)

Title has been edited with the specifics of lens :)

thanks..i don't know why i left that out :o

[willg]

gotta love wide angle...i just took this at 1/3 second HANDHELD...at 17mm
100% crop
http://www.spideronthefloor.com/handheld.jpg

[jfrancho]

hm...good info thanks..yeah that was one of the first shots i took with it...i guess i can do some more serious testing sooner or later. the real test is what they look like in printThat's fine. It looks sharp enough. Get out there and shoot some cool architecture or landscapes.

[willg]

That's fine. It looks sharp enough. Get out there and shoot some cool architecture or landscapes.

architecture is mainly the reason i bought this lens...my kit lens gives that terrible rainbow flare around every thing bright enough to see so i was using my 50mm to shoot architecture at night and i desperately needed something wider

[jfrancho]

architecture is mainly the reason i bought this lens...my kit lens gives that terrible rainbow flare around every thing bright enough to see so i was using my 50mm to shoot architecture at night and i desperately needed something widerI know what you mean about the kit lens. All of it's apparent shortcomings are actually why I've kept it - it does weird things, but they're predictably weird. Take a look at the fireworks pics (http://plan-b.smugmug.com/gallery/637893/1/27186056) I took with the kit lens.

[willg]

those are great pictures of fireworks...i don't see anything weird about them though

[willg]

here is the latest one...

http://www.spideronthefloor.com/rail.jpg

[Sathi]

I think the samples look good. Nice colours. I would be picking one up if I didn't think I wanted wider on a 1.6x

[jfrancho]

I think the samples look good. Nice colours. I would be picking one up if I didn't think I wanted wider on a 1.6xLook at the 11-18 then. It goes from really, really wide to really wide...

[Sathi]

Look at the 11-18 then. It goes from really, really wide to really wide...

I ended up ordering the canon 10-22 simply because with the deal dell had at the time the price was very near the tamron and the tonika. Although 3 weeks later dell still has not shipped me lens. Its ok though, I got $75 worth of concession coupons out of them :lol:

[jfrancho]

I ended up ordering the canon 10-22 simply because with the deal dell had at the time the price was very near the tamron and the tonika. Although 3 weeks later dell still has not shipped me lens. Its ok though, I got $75 worth of concession coupons out of them That would be an even better choice, as the range pairs nicely with your 28-75.

[csnudelman]

gotta love wide angle...i just took this at 1/3 second HANDHELD...at 17mm
100% crop
http://www.spideronthefloor.com/handheld.jpg

I don't care how steady you are, if the point is to test/show the quality of a lens, one should not try so hand holding at 1/3 second, or 1/50 second for that matter. I guess I never cease to wonder why many photographers don't use a tripod or mono-pod for almost all shots. If you really want to show your perceived quality of the lens do the lens a favor and use support. A picture taken "handheld at 1/3 second" dosen't show anything other than you can mount a lens and press the shutter.

[Sathi]

That would be an even better choice, as the range pairs nicely with your 28-75.

Yeah that wa sanother thing, the 11-18 left kind of a large gap. I REALLY like my tamron 28-75 so I was seriously considering it.

[jfrancho]

I don't care how steady you are, if the point is to test/show the quality of a lens, one should not try so hand holding at 1/3 second, or 1/50 second for that matter. I guess I never cease to wonder why many photographers don't use a tripod or mono-pod for almost all shots. If you really want to show your perceived quality of the lens do the lens a favor and use support. A picture taken "handheld at 1/3 second" dosen't show anything other than you can mount a lens and press the shutter.I don't think this was any official claim to sharpness, rather a declaration for how easy the lens was to work with. I never cease to wonder why some are so quick to dismiss others' enthusiasm, rather than try to help them take better pictures.

[csnudelman]

I don't think this was any official claim to sharpness, rather a declaration for how easy the lens was to work with. I never cease to wonder why some are so quick to dismiss others' enthusiasm, rather than try to help them take better pictures.

In willg's first post he writes "seems pretty good in terms of color and sharpness to me..what do you guys think?"

Seems he is interested in sharpness, or, at least he says so (maybe he doesn't know what he wants, is that it?). Also seems he asked for comments, unlike me who didn't ask for cross-comments.

[jfrancho]

In willg's first post he writes "seems pretty good in terms of color and sharpness to me..what do you guys think?"

Seems he is interested in sharpness, or, at least he says so (maybe he doesn't know what he wants, is that it?). Also seems he asked for comments, unlike me who didn't ask for cross-comments.And he was already politely informed what would be required to accurately judge the sharpness. Besides, don't you think the image is pretty sharp for handheld at 1/3 sec.? I would expect some camera shake with those settings. Perhaps rather than post some condescending quip, you might share with us all your process to judge a lens.

[Sathi]

I think the point the poster was trying to make is how a wide angle lens can let you take handheld shots at slower shutter speeds...I am impressed though, that is insane how not blurry it is for 1/3 handheld. I'v never used a wide angle lens though so I don't know if that is typical for that focal length.

[willg]

as far as 'testing' sharpnes..i am not going to do anyting of the sorts...i have used this lens the past few days and i love it so far. that 1/3 second handheld thing was not a sharpness test...i was just excited that i could handhold such a slow shot