Not so great pictures with Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II..

One issue that comes to mind;

Very slow shutter speed for photographing wildlife 1/100" will likely get blurry images
1/50" hand held is "ok" on the rock if you are very steady

Saginus wrote in post #14276090

I have XSi and got Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical IF SP AF after reading the excellent reviews for this lens..
now after having used it for a while, i can say that i do not get really great pictures as it was supposed to produce... Not that i have not tried everything, but i tried almost all the modes... tried landscapes, silhouettes. portraits, etc...In general my opinion about the pictures is "OK".. now i m thinking was it really worth spending that much money?
I also have nifty-fifty, and I usually am more amazed by its output than that for Tamrons... I never had a kit lens so cant compare with it...

I took a chance of assuming that it is the XSi that is the issue and recently ordered T3i..I have not received it yet, but i hope that i get good sharp images with that body..

Am i forgetting something, like post processing all the pictures? Any opinions? (I expect some bashing here that People should not blame lens/gear, but themselves, but believe me, I am fair at photography and knowledge, i am really happy with 50mm f/1.8)

your settings are all over the place !

f9 - f32 ??
shutter speed 1/50

The XSi (450D) with appropriate shutter speeds and aperture and the Tamron 17-50 should give you sharp pics
(you also need to shoot in RAW and sharpen in an image editing program like Canon's free DPP program)


XSi (450D)
Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc
f5.6
1/160
ISO 800

Saginus wrote in post #14276621
one more..

at f/32 and ISO 400..this was on a tripod...
Even at 2X zoom, the quality degrades a lot..

Long shutter speed + ISO + Low Light - yeah that can be not the greatest quality.

Anyway from all of the photos posted so far, I'd say you have a lot more to learn about photography before you can start to blame lenses or bodies.

Numenorean wrote in post #14277069
Long shutter speed + ISO + Low Light - yeah that can be not the greatest quality.

Anyway from all of the photos posted so far, I'd say you have a lot more to learn about photography before you can start to blame lenses or bodies.

i know i do... everyone does... but do you see an obvious fault in lens or procedures?

Saginus wrote in post #14277093
i know i do... everyone does... but do you see an obvious fault in lens or procedures?

Why f/32? No real reason to be stopped down that much. It can cause softness. You could have been at ISO 100 @ f/16 and gotten the same exposure.

Depending on how long the exposure was that could be an issue. What kind of tripod and head? Are you using mirror lock up? Also are you using a cable release?

watt100 wrote in post #14277026
your settings are all over the place !

f9 - f32 ??
shutter speed 1/50


The f/32 pictures was meant to capture the dragging traffic lights (although there not much traffic ) hence the slow shutter speed and used f/32, so as to get the maximum DOF...

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

f2.8
1/50
ISO 1600


Sorry, but i do not think the second picture is a sharp image (First is excellent in comparison) the faces of the gentelmen are not sharp, i was not able to find any part of image that is sharp (that might be intended area of focus)

Appreciate everyone for their time and opinions...

Numenorean wrote in post #14277109
Why f/32? No real reason to be stopped down that much. It can cause softness. You could have been at ISO 100 @ f/16 and gotten the same exposure.

Depending on how long the exposure was that could be an issue. What kind of tripod and head? Are you using mirror lock up? Also are you using a cable release?

f/32 because i wanted maximum DOF, needed the farthest building to be sharp.. i may not need it, but precisely the reason is that i think lens might not be a good copy..
Am i understanding it incorrect that for max DOF (landscapes) i need to use lowest aperture values?

I used a ball head tripod, 2 second timer....

Thanks to you too for your time..

Saginus wrote in post #14277093
i know i do... everyone does... but do you see an obvious fault in lens or procedures?

yes, the procedures! your settings do not seem appropriate for the subject. those pics of the cliffs and pelicans looked overexposed, underexposed, wrong aperture, etc. and those scenes requires a longer focal length!
Also it's best to shoot in RAW and sharpen before resizing and converting to jpeg.

watt100 wrote in post #14277186
yes, the procedures! your settings do not seem appropriate for the subject. those pics of the cliffs and pelicans looked overexposed, underexposed, wrong aperture, etc. and those scenes requires a longer focal length!
Also it's best to shoot in RAW and sharpen before resizing and converting to jpeg.

ok, i will try that today...thnx

Saginus wrote in post #14277137
The f/32 pictures was meant to capture the dragging traffic lights (although there not much traffic ) hence the slow shutter speed and used f/32, so as to get the maximum DOF...

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

f2.8
1/50
ISO 1600


Sorry, but i do not think the second picture is a sharp image (First is excellent in comparison) the faces of the gentelmen are not sharp, i was not able to find any part of image that is sharp (that might be intended area of focus)

Appreciate everyone for their time and opinions...

perhaps you have an unrealistic vision of what "depth of field" is and f2.8!

what about this?

XSi (450D)
Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc
F2.8
ISO 2000
1/80
hand held

Saginus wrote in post #14277167
f/32 because i wanted maximum DOF, needed the farthest building to be sharp.. i may not need it, but precisely the reason is that i think lens might not be a good copy..
Am i understanding it incorrect that for max DOF (landscapes) i need to use lowest aperture values?

I used a ball head tripod, 2 second timer....

Thanks to you too for your time..

That building was pretty close, relatively speaking. I can shoot at f/16 (or even less) and get foreground and mountains that are over a mile away sharp.

Let's say that you are shooting at 24mm on your 17-50. At f/11 and focused 10 feet in front of you, your farthest in focus distance will be infinity. Your nearest in focus object will be at about 4.5 feet. So from 4.5 feet in front of you to infinity at f/11. Chang it even just a bit to f/8 and focus at 15 feet and you get from ~7 feet to infinity in focus. Google Hyperfocal Distance.

For your ballhead and tripod you need to be sure that the weight rating is acceptable for your gear.

Timer is not bad, mirror lockup with cable release is better.

Also, the higher your f-stop, you introduce what is called diffraction which can actually cause less sharp results. I typically say not to worry about it, but f/32 is a bit much.

Long exposures you want the lowest ISO you can get away with as well - less noise. Noise also makes an image appear less sharp.

It's hard to really tell from the photo you posted because it's too small to really look at to identify anything else specific.

watt100 wrote in post #14277257
perhaps you have an unrealistic vision of what "depth of field" is and f2.8!

what about this?

XSi (450D)
Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc
F2.8
ISO 2000
1/80
hand held

I guess, the picture has good DOF because it was focused at hyper-focal distance..and not due to aperture being f/2.8.. had it been focused somewhere else, DOF would not be this big..
i might have to change my rules of thumb after the end of this thread

Based on your choices of camera settings, I'd like to give you some very sincere advice...you will save yourself A LOT of money in the future on cameras/lenses by learning as much as possible about lighting/exposure/edit​ing before upgrading your gear any further. Among other things, your choice of f/32 (regardless of the situation), makes it evident that you haven't quite familiarized yourself with the fundamentals of photography.

Yeah, In all honesty, f/32 isn't needed pretty much at all. And besides, with a far target like that, you're probably close to focusing at infinity, so DOF isn't really a consideration. Personally, I would've chosen f/11. Ambient should be low enough that long shutter speeds aren't really affected.

Here's an example at f5.6, 1/400 sec., ISO 100, at 35mm. On a t2i. However, similar results should easily be attainable with your Xsi. Edit: Forgot to add my copy of this lens was dropped once. 5 feet. Onto concrete. Tough little bugger.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/60215557@N02/6​939787538/

Your shutter speeds look kind of low, try setting a faster shutter speed in TV mode or use manual mode and set aperture to 2.8, shutter to 200 - 300, and iso auto.