Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
Thread started 01 Dec 2008 (Monday) 10:01
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Should I recalibrate my Tamron 17-50 2.8?

 
0(ʹͦˋ¿ˊͦˋ)0
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
100 posts
Joined Jun 2008
     
Dec 04, 2008 18:15 as a reply to  @ post 6813169 |  #16

I used a tripod and keep it on 45 degree angle. But either way it looks soft wide open. Check these pictures(100% crops) using tripod, focus was on the microphone

@ f/2.8:

IMG NOTICE: [NOT AN IMAGE URL, NOT RENDERED INLINE]

@ f/8.0:


IMG NOTICE: [NOT AN IMAGE URL, NOT RENDERED INLINE]

BTW using Live View and manual focus works perfect.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Juanjo Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
yogestee
"my posts can be a little colourful"
Avatar
13,845 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 41
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Australia
     
Dec 04, 2008 19:25 as a reply to  @ 0(ʹͦˋ¿ˊͦˋ)0's post |  #17

Are you focusing and recomposing??


Jurgen
50D~EOS M50 MkII~EOS M~G11~S95~GoPro Hero4 Silver
http://www.pbase.com/j​urgentreue (external link)
The Title Fairy,, off with her head!!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
0(ʹͦˋ¿ˊͦˋ)0
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
100 posts
Joined Jun 2008
     
Dec 04, 2008 20:02 as a reply to  @ yogestee's post |  #18

not at all yogestee. it seems like, but I'm just using tripod center point focus.


Juanjo Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Dec 04, 2008 20:11 |  #19

The 2.8 is really bad.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
blssdwlf
Senior Member
543 posts
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Houston, TX
     
Dec 04, 2008 20:22 |  #20

It seems like the f/2.8 photo misfocused. Since you fired your flash in the shots, was it kinda dark?


Regards,
Peter
--= gear: 400D / 17-50 / 55-250 / nifty-50 / flash / etc =--

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yogestee
"my posts can be a little colourful"
Avatar
13,845 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 41
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Australia
     
Dec 04, 2008 22:38 |  #21

0(ʹͦˋ¿ˊͦˋ)0 wrote in post #6814601 (external link)
I used a tripod and keep it on 45 degree angle. But either way it looks soft wide open. Check these pictures(100% crops) using tripod, focus was on the microphone

@ f/2.8:

IMG NOTICE: [NOT AN IMAGE URL, NOT RENDERED INLINE]

@ f/8.0:

IMG NOTICE: [NOT AN IMAGE URL, NOT RENDERED INLINE]

BTW using Live View and manual focus works perfect.

Then it's not really a lens issue but a camera issue.. If your images are tack sharp when you manual focus then the lens is OK,, it's doing its job.. There seems to be an issue with your 40D.. How does your 40D work with other lenses??

Is it me or am I seeing focusing issues with 40Ds and certain lenses?

I have a Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 and it's sharp through the entire aperture range on both my 20D and 350D.. I'd expect less sharp images at F/2.8,, that's normal.. Most lenses aren't at their best wide open but yours is way out of whack.. Do you have another body besides a 40D or can you borrow one?? I'd be interested how your Tamron performs on another body..


Jurgen
50D~EOS M50 MkII~EOS M~G11~S95~GoPro Hero4 Silver
http://www.pbase.com/j​urgentreue (external link)
The Title Fairy,, off with her head!!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Dec 05, 2008 06:25 |  #22

That would only hold true if it was the case with every lens mounted on that body. If other lenses are ok, then it is the lens.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
0(ʹͦˋ¿ˊͦˋ)0
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
100 posts
Joined Jun 2008
     
Dec 05, 2008 10:12 as a reply to  @ bohdank's post |  #23

The problem seems to be on my other two lenses too, it is not a constant problem, sometimes I'm getting sharp pictures.
I checked older pictures (using DPP to see the focus point) and some of them were showing the same problem, not that bad like with the Tammy but I guess it was there.

I'm sending the body. They ask me if after using the Sigma 50-150 2.8 the problem became worse, and looking trough my pictures it seems like after using the sigma everything got worse. They told that some third party lenses like sigma can cause these problems sooner or later. :confused:

I guess I have to start buying canon lenses only :p


Juanjo Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gcogger
Goldmember
2,554 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2003
Location: Southampton, UK
     
Dec 05, 2008 15:24 |  #24

I'm sorry to say this, but your three lenses are all ones that I've owned, and I found them all to focus poorly in low light. The Sigma 50-150, in particular, often has a problem with front focus at short distances, but I found it to be worse in low light. In fact I sold the Sigma for this reason, and I sold the other 2 because I wasn't happy with their focussing consistency in anything other than ideal conditions (i.e. good light and good contrast).

That's not to say that you don't have a problem with your camera, but poor focussing with all 3 of those lenses would not surprise me at all. Do you have access to other lenses to try?

I've never heard of a lens damaging the camera, however, so I suspect that's a red herring!


Graeme
My galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
strobe ­ monkey
Goldmember
Avatar
1,474 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 99
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Arizona
     
Dec 05, 2008 15:39 |  #25

I've got front focusing problem with my lens, sent it back and just got it back yesterday after 3 weeks. I did a quick test last night which looked ok, but I need to do further testing.


R5, RF85 f1.2L, RF 50 f1.8, 6D, EF16-35 F4L IS, EF50 f1.4
Sold:
40D, 50D, 7D, 5D, 5D MKII, EF 70-200 F4, EF 24-105L, EF 24-70L, EF 17-40L, EF 85 f1.8, Stigma 10-20, EF 35 f/2, EF 50 f/1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
0(ʹͦˋ¿ˊͦˋ)0
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
100 posts
Joined Jun 2008
     
Dec 05, 2008 15:48 as a reply to  @ gcogger's post |  #26

gcogger I agree with you with the 50 1.8 and 17-50 2.8, both have hard time focusing in low light, but the sigma 50-150 not really that much.
I already sent the body. I was thinking of getting the Tokina 11-16 2.8 but now I think it'll be safer to get the Canon 10-22 :eek:
I exchanged samples photos of my problem with canon c.s. in the morning and they think is the camera. I'll let you know when I get my 40D back.


Juanjo Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gcogger
Goldmember
2,554 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2003
Location: Southampton, UK
     
Dec 05, 2008 18:26 |  #27

The Sigma's problems are mostly that front focus issue at short distances. The early copies I tried did it at all focal lengths wide open (although it was more obvious at the long end), but many people have said more recently that it only does it at 150mm.

Let us know how it is when you get the camera back :)


Graeme
My galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mark_48
Goldmember
Avatar
2,068 posts
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Brookfield, MA
     
Dec 05, 2008 19:31 as a reply to  @ gcogger's post |  #28

I recently sent my Tamron 17-50 back for calibration because of front focusing issues. I had had it over a year and never was happy with the images and I finally did some tests with that convinced me to send it in. I had bought it new and it was covered under the 6 year warranty. It cost me about $10 to ship it UPS and it came back 18 days later. It now focuses dead on and I'm very pleased with Tamron's service. I wish Canon backed their lenses for 6 years.

If you're covered under warranty definitely send it in if you're not happy with it. Give Tamron a call.


Megapixels and high ISO are a digital photographers heroin. Once you have a little, you just want more and more. It doesn't stop until your bank account is run dry.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kingdean
Mostly Lurking
Avatar
17 posts
Joined Jun 2007
Location: QLD, Australia
     
Dec 06, 2008 08:55 |  #29

What do you guys make of this?

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i68.photobucket​.com/albums/i30/KingDe​aN/th_17.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i68.photobucket​.com/albums/i30/KingDe​aN/th_25.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i68.photobucket​.com/albums/i30/KingDe​aN/th_36.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i68.photobucket​.com/albums/i30/KingDe​aN/th_50.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO


17, 24, 36 and 50mm respectively
The top right is amazingly soft :S

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i68.photobucket​.com …/i30/KingDeaN/t​h_50v2.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO


0(ʹͦˋ¿ˊͦˋ)0 mine is also really soft at 2.8, sharpens up around f6



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
blssdwlf
Senior Member
543 posts
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Houston, TX
     
Dec 06, 2008 10:39 |  #30

You're not shooting it straight-on (faulty-test).

You can clearly see the sharp diagonal DOF crossing the page from mid-left to bottom-right. If you had shot it straight-on you wouldn't have the "amazingly soft" top-right ;)

Your last shot is the only one that looks close to straight-on and not at an angle to the right like the first ones.

How about some real-world shots at f/2.8 where it is soft? The 17-50's that I've used and the one I own are sharp and usable already at f/2.8.

kingdean wrote in post #6824139 (external link)
What do you guys make of this?

IMAGE NOT FOUND PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i68.photobucket​.com/albums/i30/KingDe​aN/th_17.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

IMAGE NOT FOUND PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i68.photobucket​.com/albums/i30/KingDe​aN/th_25.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

IMAGE NOT FOUND PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i68.photobucket​.com/albums/i30/KingDe​aN/th_36.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

IMAGE NOT FOUND PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i68.photobucket​.com/albums/i30/KingDe​aN/th_50.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO


17, 24, 36 and 50mm respectively
The top right is amazingly soft :S

IMAGE NOT FOUND PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i68.photobucket​.com …/i30/KingDeaN/t​h_50v2.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO


0(ʹͦˋ¿ˊͦˋ)0 mine is also really soft at 2.8, sharpens up around f6


Regards,
Peter
--= gear: 400D / 17-50 / 55-250 / nifty-50 / flash / etc =--

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,889 views & 0 likes for this thread
Should I recalibrate my Tamron 17-50 2.8?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Lousyboy
465 guests, 137 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.