Tamron 17-50 Focusing quality

twoshadows wrote in post #10892208
Here's one of the few shots from the tamron that I kept:

1/160s f/4.5 at 50.0mm iso400

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

Yeah, the background is a bit busy but would have it been noticeably better if it was taken by another lens under the same settings?

One from me with roughly similar camera settings (1/100s, f/4.0 @ 50mm, ISO 100):

Well, your subject>bg distance is a whole lot greater than my example and that will give better bokeh. And yes, the Sigmalux would have done better . I feel that the 17-50 (for ALL of the reasons stated) is not a good bargain. I actually feel it is overpriced when you consider what's out there. It's a decent lens in capable hands, but I feel it has serious limitations to all but the casual hobbyist.

cedm wrote in post #10892336
If I want a creamy background for a particular shot, I will compose and frame it with that in mind.

That's all well and good for when there is time, but when you're working on the fly, as I often do, that goes out the window . Truthfully, the not so good bokeh was one of my minor complaints about this lens. The AF was my major complaint - the fact that it's on par with the nifty fifty - as the lens' AF couldn't cut it in (what is for me) "real world situations".

twoshadows wrote in post #10892399
Well, your subject>bg distance is a whole lot greater than my example and that will give better bokeh. And yes, the Sigmalux would have done better . I feel that the 17-50 (for ALL of the reasons stated) is not a good bargain. I actually feel it is overpriced when you consider what's out there. It's a decent lens in capable hands, but I feel it has serious limitations to all but the casual hobbyist.

well, that one was shot just for the bokeh. I actually shot it twice, once at f/2.8 and once at f/4.0. F4 turned out better as you can actually recognize the background. 2.8 was too smooth.

I don't have a shot on hand like yours. The fruit one is the closet, but it's f/2.8.

I find the Tamron to be slower then my Sigma zooms or my Canon 85mm 1.8 and my 150mm macro.
But it's faster then my Canon kit lens and Sigma 50mm macro. But it blows the Canon 50mm 1.8 clear out of the water when it comes to Af speed , accuracy and noise. I find the IQ very good and it is a rather sharp lens with good color and contrast.

But don't expect it to keep up with a lens with HSM/USM , it won't . But I wouldn't call it slow either.

CountryBoy wrote in post #10892590
I find the Tamron to be slower then my Sigma zooms or my Canon 85mm 1.8 and my 150mm macro.
But it's faster then my Canon kit lens and Sigma 50mm macro. But it blows the Canon 50mm 1.8 clear out of the water when it comes to Af speed , accuracy and noise. I find the IQ very good and it is a rather sharp lens with good color and contrast.

But don't expect it to keep up with a lens with HSM/USM , it won't . But I wouldn't call it slow either.

+1,Here is a shot on A1 focus with a 400D of the grandson exceeding his and the bikes abilities

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I used to own a Tammy 17-50, really sharp lens, focused accurately, but a bit noisy... I just did not like the focal range and did not use it much.

The focus on Tamron is OK. Better (more accurate and slightly faster) than 50/1.8, worse than 85/1.8, about on par with most other lenses I've tried.