Tamron 17-50 f2.8 "Quick Test"

Tee Why wrote in post #3076499
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.

Thanks for sharing your experience. Funny thing is, this is the best "built" Tammy I've used as everything feels nice and tight and dampened perfectly. In reality though, it's very similar to its 2875 sibling in build-feel. Not great, but not bad either. And FWIW, I've got a MC UV on it already, especially since we'll be around the beaches and sand, etc.

LightRules wrote in post #3076473
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.

I think if you post process and adjust sharpness, contrast, and color the difference would not be significant enough to see any difference on 8x12 prints.

Tee Why wrote in post #3076510
I think if you post process and adjust sharpness, contrast, and color the difference would not be significant enough to see any difference on 8x12 prints.

Actually basic levels adjustments were made, but no USM of any sort. Anyway, I'll spend some more time with it in the coming days and see how I like its performance.

Yea, in such places, I'd definitely recommend a UV filter. For travel, I'd personally take the 20D minus the grip and lens hood, just put on a UV filter and the 20D/Tamron makes a very light and fast travel lens/body set up. That's what I'd do, so you can blend in with the rest of the tourists.

Try shooting it in RAW and adjust each image to it's optimum and then recheck. I doubt you'd see much difference. I think if you shoot in RAW or post process as a normal workflow, you should also see how the lens does in pure unprocessed raw and then process the shot as you normally would. This may mask some of the inherent softness but as we all sharpen in postprocessing, it may be more real world.

Tee Why wrote in post #3076527
Yea, in such places, I'd definitely recommend a UV filter. For travel, I'd personally take the 20D minus the grip and lens hood, just put on a UV filter and the 20D/Tamron makes a very light and fast travel lens/body set up. That's what I'd do, so you can blend in with the rest of the tourists.

Sheesh, I ain't no tourist Actually we've got a time share there and we've been going for many years (about once every 1-2 yrs on average). I was hoping that the 1650 would have been out by now, so now it's going to be the 1750f2.8, 30f1.4 and 70-200f4IS, and 1.4xTC. That's it (plus some Lee/Cokin stuff). I don't even remember what it was like without the BG, so it's staying on; I'm so used to it. MC filters are coming but hoods are staying in the bag (most of the time). We think alike. Scary

Demented minds think alike. Personally, I'd ditch the 30 and the 70-200, but if you plan on some low light stuff or longer zoom type of shots, that would be nice.

To be honest, like most zooms, it needs to be stopped down a stop or two. I find that at f4 or f5.6, it's really sharp and I smile while working on the images at 100% when I use it in good light b/c the image is so sharp and contrasty.

Tee Why wrote in post #3076582
Demented minds think alike. Personally, I'd ditch the 30 and the 70-200, but if you plan on some low light stuff or longer zoom type of shots, that would be nice.

To be honest, like most zooms, it needs to be stopped down a stop or two. I find that at f4 or f5.6, it's really sharp and I smile while working on the images at 100% when I use it in good light b/c the image is so sharp and contrasty.

The last one I'm ditching is the 30f1.4. I could walkaround with it all day and night; I think I shoot that lens at f1.4 about 98% of the time. The other two are coming along for the ride.

As for stopping down the zoom, I agree; it looks real good around f4-f5. And as for shooting RAW, for these purposes and crops, I think JPG/Parameter 2 will suffice. I'm not looking for optimal processed output.

Nah, I'm a big fan of shooting RAW and converting.

I've actually been quite pleased with the bokeh from my Tamron 17-50. In my shots, it's been pretty buttery. Maybe I'm weird.

I've added some more test shots (see my original post above).

LightRules wrote in post #3080164
I've added some more test shots (see my original post above).

Great, im not thinking about buying this lens as I already own the 17-70, but its always nice to see what the other side is like

One thing about the misfocus issue you mentioned, my 17-70 isnt as bad as your examples but I do find that if I want to shoot at 17mm F2.8 I can get better results by zooming to 70mm, focus, zoom out & then take the shot.

I naturally assumed that it was my 350D to blaim, as I keep hearing that its AF performance isnt top notch.

Do you have any ideas, theory or advice on this? as I cant seem to find any details on this sort of thing.

Thx,
Nick

Nick_C wrote in post #3080398
One thing about the misfocus issue you mentioned, my 17-70 isnt as bad as your examples but I do find that if I want to shoot at 17mm F2.8 I can get better results by zooming to 70mm, focus, zoom out & then take the shot

Hi Nick, the parfocal method of focusing (zoom all the way in, half press to lock focus, zoom back out, then release shutter) works on many of these APS-C standard zooms (even though they technically are not parfocal). I found this to be the case when testing the 18-125 and 28-75, among others, a while back. It seems like the 17-50 and 17-70 are the same. I suppose it's the safe way to ensure proper focusing at the wide end.

From my experience, in general, I am seeing Canon lenses to be deliver more accurate focusing than 3rd party more and more. For example, in my use with the 1785, 1755, and 1740 lenses, they were almost always bang-on at the wide end shooting a wide variety of subject distances and subject contrast. Anyway it's something I've noticed.

Tee Why wrote in post #3076527
Yea, in such places, I'd definitely recommend a UV filter. For travel, I'd personally take the 20D minus the grip and lens hood, just put on a UV filter and the 20D/Tamron makes a very light and fast travel lens/body set up. That's what I'd do, so you can blend in with the rest of the tourists.

Would you please tell me what brand of UV filter you recommend ? I need one for both 17-50 Tamron and 17-85IS Canon both use 67mm .

Thanks in advance.

DerekI wrote in post #3080442
Would you please tell me what brand of UV filter you recommend ? I need one for both 17-50 Tamron and 17-85IS Canon both use 67mm

You have a number of good options out there that are multicoated, like the B+W, Hoya SHMC, and Kenko Pro 1 MC Digital. Any one of these will do the job.