Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC

This lens really looks sharp to me. I'm getting ready to buy but had thought about the non VC because it was supposed to be better but I sure don't see anything wrong with what i see here.

gordon67 wrote in post #11252539

Gordon, I like the color contrast between the earth and sky tones. It looks like your environment is the opposite of mine: you have kind of bleak scenery with sharp, clear air; I live in a lush, tropical place, but the humidity and pollution mute the colors and sky.
Looking at your pictures reminds me of Samuel Johnson and James Boswell's books about traveling in that region--230 years ago, of course, but it's still about how they described it!

Yes the air quality was particularly clear today, and it was quite cold which I believe can make the air clear. We have very little pollution on this island, in fact there is also very little light pollution on the hebrides, on a cloudless cold autumn night, you can sometimes see millions of stars. And because we are so far north, on some summer nights it doesnt get very dark, you could go for a walk perfectly easily at midnight in the summer. We sometimes get the northern lights too, although I have only seen them once.

msgnighty wrote in post #11245944

Incredible pictures! Where were these pictures taken?

trinh wrote in post #11262917
Incredible pictures! Where were these pictures taken?

the first two picutres were taken on top of the "Pendling", it's a mountain in Austria

the last picture was taken in my basement while setting up some flashes and lights for a shooting the next day

0.5s ƒ/2.8 ISO 800 at 17 mm without tripod - VCmagic

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/gepixelt/516750​1840/

I'm very new to digital. I'm very interested in this lens. I have a Canon 50D and shoot Raw and use DPP for processig and I'm sure DPP does not support profiles for the Tamron. Could you please tell me what you use for lens correction? I'm deffinately going to purchase a Tamron 60mm and I'm really intersted in this lens. Reviews say that the non VC is sharper but from what I have seen here this lens looks really good to me. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks

GARY1951 wrote in post #11279065
I'm very new to digital. I'm very interested in this lens. I have a Canon 50D and shoot Raw and use DPP for processig and I'm sure DPP does not support profiles for the Tamron. Could you please tell me what you use for lens correction? I'm deffinately going to purchase a Tamron 60mm and I'm really intersted in this lens. Reviews say that the non VC is sharper but from what I have seen here this lens looks really good to me. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks

Gary, Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw (as part of Photoshop) both do automatic lens correction (well, after you click on it). I use the Tamron 90 and love it! Great length for Macro and portraits. I'm curious, why the 60?

While I'm here, this is a night shot in the rain. I took it to show off my daughter's new celebrity (she's the little girl).

Your daughter is a Sweetheart!! I have thought about the 90 Tamron alot and have been trying to decide which way to go. As you can see I came from the film era and the digital ia all new to me. I guess the reason I was looking at the 60 was the F2 and the FTMF on the 60. I beleive the 90 would probably be better. Also the 60 would have gave me a fast lens in the 60mm area as right now I just have the 2, 28mm zooms that are pretty slow. I'm figuring on selling all my lenses except the 70-200L and my EOS3 that I truly love but just don't use anymore. This is all very new to me but I really love photography and want to learn the digital. I was thinking of purchasing Elements 9 but maybe I should take a hard look at Lightroom. I'm 59 and I just can not hand hold like I use to so the 17-50 VC is very appealing to me. It is just that all the reviews say the non VC is better. I do shoot with a tripod alot but like the idea of the VC for walk around. Any thoughts or tips would be appreciated. Thanks for your time.

GARY1951 wrote in post #11279434
Your daughter is a Sweetheart!! I have thought about the 90 Tamron alot and have been trying to decide which way to go. As you can see I came from the film era and the digital ia all new to me. I guess the reason I was looking at the 60 was the F2 and the FTMF on the 60. I beleive the 90 would probably be better. Also the 60 would have gave me a fast lens in the 60mm area as right now I just have the 2, 28mm zooms that are pretty slow. I'm figuring on selling all my lenses except the 70-200L and my EOS3 that I truly love but just don't use anymore. This is all very new to me but I really love photography and want to learn the digital. I was thinking of purchasing Elements 9 but maybe I should take a hard look at Lightroom. I'm 59 and I just can not hand hold like I use to so the 17-50 VC is very appealing to me. It is just that all the reviews say the non VC is better. I do shoot with a tripod alot but like the idea of the VC for walk around. Any thoughts or tips would be appreciated. Thanks for your time.

I didn't know the 60 was F2. That is pretty sweet! It's just that almost all Canon users get the Canon 50mm 1.8 cuz it's a really nice, bright lens and only cost $100. The 60 is a true macro, so I figured you were going to shoot bugs, that's why I suggested the 90. If you just want a super sharp, bright lens, the 60 is no doubt very good!
This might be heresy around here, but have you considered the new Sony A55? Its a really good camera with built in stabilization. With that you could get the Non-VC lenses (Tamron Sony mount) and still have all the benefits. You can also mount the second hand, cheap Minolta lenses on it (sony bought Minolta and use their mount) and have IS as well (if you have a good second hand shop around, or use ebay). Just some thoughts...
BTW, lightroom elements might do automatic lens correction as well. I've never used it so I can't comment.

Mookalafalas wrote in post #11279493
I didn't know the 60 was F2. That is pretty sweet! It's just that almost all Canon users get the Canon 50mm 1.8 cuz it's a really nice, bright lens and only cost $100. The 60 is a true macro, so I figured you were going to shoot bugs, that's why I suggested the 90. If you just want a super sharp, bright lens, the 60 is no doubt very good!
This might be heresy around here, but have you considered the new Sony A55? Its a really good camera with built in stabilization. With that you could get the Non-VC lenses (Tamron Sony mount) and still have all the benefits. You can also mount the second hand, cheap Minolta lenses on it (sony bought Minolta and use their mount) and have IS as well (if you have a good second hand shop around, or use ebay). Just some thoughts...
BTW, lightroom elements might do automatic lens correction as well. I've never used it so I can't comment.

Thanks for the reply, I will be staying with Canon as I just bought the 50D in July so it is still very new. I mainly shoot Portraits of people and animals and shoot a lot of flowers. I also love to shoot birds etc. By reading more on the 17-50 and its close focusing I may get along with it very well. Then I could get the 90mm for my macro or maybe the 180mm. Could be the best of both worlds. Thanks for the help.

GARY1951 wrote in post #11279434
I'm 59 and I just can not hand hold like I use to so the 17-50 VC is very appealing to me. It is just that all the reviews say the non VC is better. I do shoot with a tripod alot but like the idea of the VC for walk around. Any thoughts or tips would be appreciated. Thanks for your time.

I never used the non-VC Version (but I used a Sigma 17-70 without image stabilzer before) but this little VC-device is really magical. I never imagined that it could be that good.

I've been busy lately!

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …las-pixgalore/5174231307/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …las-pixgalore/5174835508/

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

Wow, that's some sweet bokeh!