Tamron 17-50 f2.8 "Quick Test"

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di-II (for 1.6x bodies only) --- Here are some findings with the first test comparing it to other lenses (Canons 50f1.4, 85f1.8, 70-200f2.8IS, Sigmas 30f1.4, 50EX Macro).

Here is the main link http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/t1750qt

Here is the "$1 Bill" test http://www.pbase.com …s/image/7745751​7/original

Here is the 17mm test (from f2.8 - f32) http://www.pbase.com …s/image/7750128​8/original [Note my comments on focus problems at 17mm with this new copy.]

Here is the 50mm test (from f2.8- f32) http://www.pbase.com …s/image/7750128​9/original [Focus is generally good and reliable at 50mm.]

Here you can see the FOV differences at 17mm, 35mm, and 50mm http://www.pbase.com …s/image/7750128​0/original

Here is how the AF sounds http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=8Q1AKNcqtw4

Nice test. To me, the 30 EX and 50mm f1.4 look the sharpest followed closely by the 85mm f1.8. But the 85mm crop is a little larger so that may make it appear a tad softer than it is. My guess is the zoom would probably keep up when it's stopped down some. Thanks for sharing.

Edit: the 70-200mm f2.8L IS image proves that it is very sharp wide open .

Rumrunner wrote in post #3075310
Nice test. To me, the 30 EX and 50mm f1.4 look the sharpest followed closely by the 85mm f1.8. But the 85mm crop is a little larger so that may make it appear a tad softer than it is. My guess is the zoom would probably keep up when it's stopped down some. Thanks for sharing.

In a sense, it isn't "fair" for the Tamron to be put up against these faster primes (and hence "stopped down to f2.8"). The only other zoom, the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS, can also be "prime-like" so even this may be an unfair comparison. The only other f2.8 lens in the test is the Sigma 50, but it's a "macro" lens, and we all know how they are in resolving detail, even to the edges. So in this particular test, the Tammy places last (both at 30mm f2.8 and 50mm f2.8 ). But overall the Tamron is a nice lens, though its bokeh is harsh. I'd rate the IQ to be in the "good-to-very good" range wide open at f2.8 for a standard zoom (APS-C). Of course, at f4 and f5.6 it's a fair bit better, but those are not shown in the first test.

FWIW, you can see how tremendous the 85f1.8 is for more distant subjects where it walks all over the competition http://www.pbase.com …s/image/4524612​4/original

Here is how the AF sounds http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=8Q1AKNcqtw4

Turn your sound up a bit as I used the lowest quality (email) setting for recording this with my Elph SD 700 IS movie mode. If you're used to ring USM or Sigma's ring HSM, it may be a bit distracting, but it's fairly normal-sounding for the non-ring units.

I'm a bit of a newbie, but can you explain to me why this bokeh is unpleasing?

What does it mean for it to be harsh? It has like 8 blade apertures or something...

I have the lens, and I do agree the bokeh is not as nice as on my other canon lenses (60mm macro, 70-300 IS).

Can someone explain?

Thanks m8, cant wait for some more tests with this lens,
Nick

Your 1750 results are interesting. My tests have it appearing sharpest at the long end.

The 70-200's performance is quite impressive.
Looks like the 30EX wins.

bowlesbe wrote in post #3075495
I'm a bit of a newbie, but can you explain to me why this bokeh is unpleasing? What does it mean for it to be harsh? It has like 8 blade apertures or something...I have the lens, and I do agree the bokeh is not as nice as on my other canon lenses (60mm macro, 70-300 IS). Can someone explain?

The lens has 7 circular aperture blades. This alone doesn't make or break bokeh; many other factors are involved with pleasing or not-so-pleasing bokeh, including the background itself, focal length, fstop, etc. Give Rick's article here a good read as I think it's useful http://www.rickdenney.​com/bokeh_test.htm

Really, thanks! Nice to know its not just my imagination that the tammy's bokeh is not the pretties. I do however, LOVE my canon bokeh, i always wondered why!

Is the 17-55 IS better in this respect? What about the 24-105? Would they ahve similar bokeh?

What is your impression of exactly why the tammy bokeh might not be the nicest?

bowlesbe wrote in post #3075594
Is the 17-55 IS better in this respect? What about the 24-105? Would they ahve similar bokeh?

I don't recall any issue with bokeh on the 1755IS copies I used; what stuck out to me about the 1755IS was the flare. Otherwise, it's an exceptional optic. The flare performance of the Tammy though is better than the Canon. So if I had to say, to me, the bokeh of the 1755IS is more pleasing and non-distracting than the 1750Di-II. I don't know about the 24-105IS.

Again, having seen countless images of bokeh throughout my life, it just distracts me. There's a strong subjective element to it, and when I view the many preliminary images and crops with this lens, I am finding myself drawn to the out of focus highlights than seem unpleasing to my eye and distracting. That said, I don't think it's a deal-breaker; for many it is probably acceptable in the large picture of things, considering the lens' perks.

LightRules wrote in post #3075132
I haven't had much time with the new Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di-II (for 1.6x bodies only) as it arrived yesterday, but here are some preliminary/initial findings with the first test comparing it to other lenses (Canons 50f1.4, 85f1.8, 70-200f2.8IS, Sigmas 30f1.4, 50EX Macro).

Here is the main link http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/t1750qt

Here is the main "$1 Bill" test (not embedded here due to its 1700x1500 size) http://www.pbase.com …s/image/7745751​7/original

Here is how the AF sounds http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=8Q1AKNcqtw4

Feel free to post comments at my site too.

[As of note, because the Tokina 16-50 f2.8 hasn't been released, I had to pick this lens up for my Maui trip upcoming, but I do plan to try out the Tokina once it is available. My main concern right now is to make sure focusing is good with this copy prior to leaving. So far it seems relatively good, with a few misses here and there, which is acceptable.]

Hi , Light rules , your tests are always respected and I think always appreciate that kind of effort you are putting into those tests.

I am also kinda shocked that you finally get this Tamron , I thought you would not get it any way , I hope you are happy with the lens and able to go Maui with it .

IMHO, the lens is a stellar , I will check your site and see what I could not find you 've found there thanks always.

regards.

DerekI wrote in post #3075656
I am also kinda shocked that you finally get this Tamron , I thought you would not get it any way , I hope you are happy with the lens and able to go Maui with it

Hi Derek, I think the Tamron 1750 is the "best bang for the buck" standard APS-C zoom currently available (though one could argue for the Sigma 1770 too). With the Tokina 16-50 still not available, I had to pick it up for my trip. Time will tell if I keep it or not though. Thanks for the kind words.

Hmmm, I find the diff between the Sigma 30mm and Tamron 17-50 very close. Here are my test shots of the 30mm and the Tamron at f2.8. Both shot RAW with no PP. I'd say with pp, there shouldn't really be a difference in prints, only trivial diff. if you pixel peep.
Sig http://tomyi.smugmug.c​om/gallery/2000895#114​326030
Tam http://tomyi.smugmug.c​om/gallery/2000895#114​326066

Here are the bokeh tests for Sigma and then Tamron as well. Both shot at MFD at longest focal length wide open. Again unprocessed. Processed versions are also on my site.
Sig

Interesting, Tom. Here's something I just put up about 10 mins ago http://www.pbase.com …s/image/7746518​0/original

In short, I'm finding quite a difference between my primes and the 1750. Regardless, the Tamron is going to be my main walkaround for my trip to Maui coming up. I'm sure it'll be fine.

Variations????

BTW, the seal between the plastic frame that holds the front element is not very tight. I had a dust go through it and a few days ago, I made the mistake of spraying lens cleaner and then using a blower to blow the excess off the edges. The air blew the cleaner inside the barrel and onto the inside of the front element. Thankfully the cleaner evaporated with no mark on the inside of the front element, but It maybe worth it to consider putting a UV filter to prevent such things. As for me, I'm more cavalier, so I'll just use hoods as small dust sucked into the lens don't affect the optics anyway.

But just an FYI. I'm starting to rethink getting the Tamron 70-200 b/c of their poor build. I've never had dust and fluid leak through the frame that holds the front element ever, but from now on, I'll be more careful.