Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di II LD


thoughton

Link Posted 03/01/2010 - 23:48
I've had this lens a while now, but I am constantly amazed by its sharpness. If you're looking for a very sharp, low-light, walkaround zoom with incredible value for money, this is the lens to buy (in my opinion, of course ).

(The main downside is that it is quite noisy when autofocusing).

Here's a 1:1 crop of a shot I took yesterday on my K20D. This was a RAW image, the exposure has been boosted but there has been no sharpening.



Tim
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27, Macbook Pro 17, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr Fluidr PPG Street Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!
Last Edited by thoughton on 03/01/2010 - 23:50

melness

Link Posted 04/01/2010 - 09:42
I had this lens for about two months ,it's a fantastic bit of kit ,the noisy focus didn't bother me at all in fact i quite liked it ,had to sell it when i decided to change brands .I'll definitely be looking out for another one .Can't rate it highly enough ,best bang for buck
Thanks
Sean

Greytop

Link Posted 04/01/2010 - 10:30
How does it perform wide open across the frame in terms of sharpness? And how is the build quality?

I am interested because the DA* 16-50 is a little soft in the boarder when wide open.
Regards Huw

flickr

iceblinker

Link Posted 04/01/2010 - 11:45
Greytop wrote:
How does it perform wide open across the frame in terms of sharpness?

Well. See this Photozone.de review of the Nikon-fit version for detail.

Warning to other readers: An AF Adjustment may be required, which can only be done for individual lenses on the K20D and K-7.

Quote:
And how is the build quality?

The plastics look cheaper than Pentax's, but actually it's good and solid and nice to use - and carries on remaining so. I like it.
~Pete
Last Edited by iceblinker on 04/01/2010 - 11:47

melness

Link Posted 04/01/2010 - 12:27
It's not tack sharp,but to be honest what lens is at the biggest aperture , i'll see if i can find a photo i've taken .Bare with me
Thanks
Sean

thoughton

Link Posted 04/01/2010 - 13:11
I took this photo wide open using this lens. You can click through to 'All Sizes' to see the full-sized version. Unfortunately it won't help much with your questions about corner sharpness due to the limited DOF.
Tim
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27, Macbook Pro 17, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr Fluidr PPG Street Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!

thoughton

Link Posted 04/01/2010 - 13:17
About build quality I've heard people complain of barrel wobble, and filter ring wobble. Supposedly neither issue affects image quality, it's just disconcerting. Mine has no barrel wobble, but the filter ring does flop around a bit if you wiggle it. I haven't noticed any IQ problems from that. Other than that it seems very solid.

Agree with Iceblinker about the AF adjustment, I've read several similar reports. My own copy needed a fairly large (8 or 9) adjustment on my K20D.
Tim
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27, Macbook Pro 17, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr Fluidr PPG Street Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!

Greytop

Link Posted 04/01/2010 - 15:35
Interesting, thanks for the replies
I think I would still like to see some images (at some point) where the subject remains in the focal plane at f/2.8 to give me a feel for how it compares with the DA* 16-50
Regards Huw

flickr

thoughton

Link Posted 04/01/2010 - 16:27
I'll try and find one! If not I'll take one for you, watch this space
Tim
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27, Macbook Pro 17, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr Fluidr PPG Street Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!

Greytop

Link Posted 04/01/2010 - 16:50
Thanks Tim I really appreciate that but please take your time, there is no rush at least as far as I'm concerned
Regards Huw

flickr

thoughton

Link Posted 04/01/2010 - 17:05
No problem, I'll be working at home all day tomorrow. perfect chance to skive off

I'm not even sure why I started this thread It was late and I'd had a few. I was just going over some photos from the day before (drunkenly marvelling at my photographic prowess ) and it occurred to me that the Tamron 17-50 doesn't get enough love on this forum!
Tim
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27, Macbook Pro 17, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr Fluidr PPG Street Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!
Last Edited by thoughton on 04/01/2010 - 17:07

johnriley

Link Posted 04/01/2010 - 17:22
You asked for an honest reply, and to be honest the image isn't really very sharp. Lenses even wide open can be sharp, although DOF will be very limited, and a Perfect Lens would actually be at its best wide open.

Sadly there is no such thing as a Perfect Lens, so most are best at medium apertures.
Best regards, John

iceblinker

Link Posted 04/01/2010 - 18:05
John, are you bearing in mind that that is a 100% view and RAW with no sharpening?
~Pete

Greytop

Link Posted 04/01/2010 - 18:13
Must admit I thought it looked pretty good as a 1:1 without any sharpening.
Regards Huw

flickr

mikew

Link Posted 04/01/2010 - 18:54
There must have been some sharpening in the RAW conversion surely? If not then it's a pointless test as you need to apply sharpening at that stage. Given that it's not been resized then you shouldn't need any unsharp mask at the save as JPEG stage which is probably what was meant. I wouldn't describe it as bitingly sharp and I have always felt my own copy is just that.

This is the best I can do for now f4.5 at 125th top left corner actual pixels RAW with some PP no unsharp only sharpening at RAW conversion.




Click on it for full size.

I'll see what I can dig out. I barely use it these days as I tend to use primes and it's a bit big for my taste.

Mike
---------------------------------------------------

You can see some of my shots at my Flickr account.
Last Edited by mikew on 04/01/2010 - 19:21
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.