Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 - first shots

I picked up this lens this afternoon and spent a wonderful few hours snapping away in my neighbourhood. While these shots don't show off its wide-angle capabilities, I was very pleased with the colour, dof, and sharpness.

1.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Looks good. I like the first shot the best, but they're all nice & clear.

I hope you can learn to love it as i have . congrats and nice pics

This is starting to look like a very nice lens and addresses the problem of the 28-75mm being too long for the crop bodies much of the time. As to the comments people make. I find it desparate why people should try so hard to put people off this kind of gear. It is almost by buying it you stamp on their own choices. Of course, that is nonesense. Insecurity pure and simple. Of you're not for us you are against us LMAO

If you didn't bait people with "I can't believe people have such and such opinion different from my own," when, like in this case no one ever stated such an opinion in the first place, than I imagine there would be fewer flames all around.

Also: That must have been a big bee. ^^

People feel validated in their opinions if others follow suit. It's human nature. Because of the online-centric nature of our "hobby" (ie. reviewing, talking, comparing, sharing), there are many people who have gone with advice they've read online, rather than trying equipment in-store, and evaluating their own opinions.

But back to the bee - the bush was swarming with them, all fat and heavy with pollen. I was able to get very close and it didn't phase them one bit. But there was one that was just colossal. I don't have a clear shot of it (the wind picked up, and it was difficult to get that close and keep everything in frame), but in the words of Peter Venkman ... "bite your head off, man."

Looks great. If this had been out when I bought my 28-75, I certainly would have gone with the 17-50 instead. Enjoy your new lens.

very nice pics. were these touched up at all besides resizing? i own a few of the cheaper third party lenses and am slowly buying better lenses as i get the money but for what i pay for them they're great.
beth

How am I baiting people when I responded directly to the OP points?

Thanks for the comments so far.

Beth, I applied some slight USM to each (200, 0.3, 0) as I had turned off all in-camera sharpening, but to be honest, they didn't really need it. Nothing else was tweaked.

Great images! These shots confirm the positives I had already heard from a friend of mine. Looks like this lens will be my next zoom.

I'm well impressed with the autofocus!

Just a few observations from using the 17-50. Concerning the zoom ring, I find the 17-50 zoom ring to be a tag tighter than the 28-75's (based on my experience with my own copies of the lenses) which is to my liking. One complaint I have with the 17-50 is the pincushion distortion at the long end when camera to subject distance is close; say within 10 ft.

In short, the 17-50, IMO, is a great lens. I like it more than the 28-75 on a crop body. Considering its low price, I am totally amazed by the sharpness and contrast of this lens at F/2.8.

Very nice sample shots. This lens looks like it will be a great contender to the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX.

We're going to end up with several great choices in this range, and that can't be a bad thing. I've heard good things about the Sigma 18-50 EX and this Tamron. I'm curious to see how the upcomming Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 will compare. If it is anything like the 12-24, it should be another good option.