Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8

I blended 5 captures together using photomatix to get this result.

These were shot at 17mm and f/16 for 2, 1.3, 0.8, 0.5, and 0.3 seconds

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

^^^^^
Wow....did you use a tripd (or rock/beanbag)?

I need to learn how to use my tammy17-50 like this.

then maybe my F50fd-wielding fiance will quite showing me up

nw85887 wrote in post #4089019
^^^^^
Wow....did you use a tripd (or rock/beanbag)?

I need to learn how to use my tammy17-50 like this.

then maybe my F50fd-wielding fiance will quite showing me up

Yes, tripod down low, plus with the mirror locked up, and I used the remote release...

I sold it because I had 24-105L and 17-55IS also but as I sold it I missed this lens alot.

And , re-bought it last night.

The color of the lens is more vibrant than the Canons and I think this Tamorn is sharper than these canons in close foucs distance , although the 17-55IS is sharper at infinity zone.

The Tmaorn is a great lens if any one thinking of getting an EF-S17-55IS to replace it with kinda expectation for it to beat this 17-50 Tamorn hands down, I 'd say think it carefully and check all images on line from both lenses.

The Canon is not much sharper or 2 times better, and I do not even think the Canon is a better lens over all than this Tmaorn............as I said , I like the Tmaorn color better and I think this lens focuses fast enough especially on my 40D , never hunt and able to do some close-up that the Canon is not good at.

So my point is many just think a gand lens is much better than 400US lens and give others a comment like "if you can afford it, go for the Canon, you won't regret it"when the issue is discussed , but it is not the case here.

I could afford the Canon and have it but still bought the Tamorn as a day light lens.

It is not the money , the size and the color are something you need to seriously think of when upgrading your lens to the EF24-105L or 17-55IS from this , I 'd say keep it not trade this lens in for them.

As I stolen my 10-22 at BKK airport last month and needed to replace it since I shoot Ayuttya relics for some companies in Osaka, but I did not have enough money left in my lens account , so I had to sell either this or EF-S60 , I was initially thinking of selling this or 17-85IS but I sold the 60 since I haven't used it much and I haven't done any macro, I guess, I would need it.

It does not matter how great a lens is if you do not need the focal length or range...............

So for me , most useful Canon set up (I also own 3 Nikons) is like this:

1 main set:
EOS40D or 1D3 depends on your budget.
EF-S17-55IS or EF24-105L depending on your body.
EF-70-200f4L IS or 70-300DO IS I have both and love them but for me the DO is much more useful because it is black and super fast AFing and 300mm is needed when I do not want to carry my EF300f4L IS.
EF 100f2USM not needed but it is useful some times.
EF-S10-22 very useful my main lens for my work.
EF300f4L IS, needed but some times draw too much pay attention and once arrested in Burma because of this.

2 sub set:
EOS400D
EF-S17-85IS and Tmaorn17-50.
my XTI shares all other lenses with my main camera currently the 40D.

When I go travel relaly light with my Canon I bring my XTI with this Tmaorn ,EF-S 10-22..............

But often I choose my Nikon when go out light since Nikon 's got the excellent 18-200VR and 12-24.

Finally, dont think the Nikon 18-200VR like the Sigma OS crap, they are completely different kind of lenses unless you have a Nikon , you wont know it.

The Sigma OS is a really bad lens that has to deceive your camaera body to properly AF ............

Also, Sigma is not a company being trusted by most , Tamron is not like Sigma ,Tamron is a serious optical company the CZ16-80 is designed by Tamron not by CZ.

This can tell you something about all those review sites that they are all idiots and ignorant.

I mean if the name of lens is CZ, L, Nikkor or Leica rated so high but they do not even know CZ does not design or even make lenses for Sony , it is just a buiness license.

A Pnasonic Leica is not a Leica , but it is a Coshina made lens.

So do not even read those lens review sites other than real ones like William Castleman, SLRgera and the-digital-picture.

the photozone.de is a shallow site with very shallow testing (you can do that at your home , just buy the soft ware), I do take them with a huge grain of salt.

They seem like they do not know how Japanese companies' inter-relationship works, most of BRAND name lenses are made by those they look down on as off-brands such as Sigma, Tamron and Coshina, but with these names like Leica, CZ, Canon, Nikon and Sony on a lens , they do worship and rave about it.

It is so funny and never even bother the site after I read what the reviewer was talking about Sony CZ and Pana Leica..............

I think your best bet is to see as many photos from lenses you want to consider buying as possible , and ignore photozone.de.

Who cares what the reviewer thinks or says about your lens , a name can not capture anything but optics do .

Dont look down on Tamron just because it is not a camera maker , remember thoese CZ lenses in Sony mount are all made by Tmaorn and all pro TV and Movie Cameras of Sony use Tamorn lenses.

Also, these Sony Ericsson phones use Tamorn lens units.

RWE wrote in post #4059799
Nice knife! Did you make it?

Thanks, it was made by a Swedish Knifemaker called Roger Falt, he goes by the username "praktis" on the knife forums.

He is usually on www.britishblades.com

I am also a member there with the same username.

Thanks,
Kam

one more knife and I'll kill myself!!

I still like the Tamron 28-75 over the 17-50. Though most people probably prefer the wider angle, I like the extra reach; the 28-75 is the longest lens I have. I also have a 10-20 for wide angle, which covers the widest point of the 17-50.

To me, the 28-75 is a better long term investment because it is both less expensive and fully compatible with full frame sensors. The sharpness is also very good, and I'm having fun using it for a macro lens and having the subject only 1/4" from the front element @ 75mm.

The more I use this lens, the more I realize that my equipment is far more capable than myself (as a photographer).

Practice, practice, practice!

minimal PP : light USM + crop + resize

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

Some samples:

http://rantsu.1g.fi …%29/ruisk1_cpp_​100607.JPG

http://rantsu.1g.fi …es/aronia5_cpp_​260507.JPG

http://rantsu.1g.fi …kelt-lilja_cpp_100707.JPG

http://rantsu.1g.fi …ips/tulip1_cpp_​180507.JPG

http://rantsu.1g.fi …stes_1851v_cpp_​210907.JPG

Deleted

Photos from my summer trip to Quebec City

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Still working on it (learning this lens and photography overall), but getting better.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

I took this today while in Chattanooga.