View Full Version : Tamron 17-50 images
I am looking for a few images from a Tamron 17-50 f2.8, preferably a close up of something ( flowerbud etc) around 50mm f2.8 in jpeg format with no PP.
Most people rave over how sharp the Tammy is and that it isnt worth replacing it with a Nikon 17-55 f2.8. I just want to check the quality/sharpness against mine to check mine is performing as it should.
Allan
Chillimonster
24-06-2009, 15:36
This is the only one i can find at the moment that was taken on my 17-50 Tammy.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3600/3586599812_c1082dbb6f_o.jpg
itsdavedotnet
24-06-2009, 15:37
http://www.flickr.com/groups/37412600@N00/ :)
Chillimonster
24-06-2009, 15:38
Crop of the above image :)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3325/3657469930_4d94f0a3bd_o.jpg
What aperture did you use on that one?
Allan
Chillimonster
24-06-2009, 16:16
Fairly sure it was wide open as i was testing the lens after getting it back from being calibrated.
If its under warranty its always worth the £7 postage to send it in for calibration - it cant hurt :)
dapprman
24-06-2009, 17:20
Just taken this now - shiny thing by the window of my hotel room. It's at 50mm and f2.8, saved on camera as jpeg
http://inlinethumb18.webshots.com/39825/2598819540068121270S600x600Q85.jpg (http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2598819540068121270WBQUXh)
Have to say I am thinking of the 17-55 Nikon 2.8, but at around a third of the price keen to see what a Tamron 2.8 can do.
I think you should go for the Nikon - otherwise you'll always have doubts! Neither of these images would convince me a Tamron was better than the Nikon!
Chillimonster
24-06-2009, 20:03
I think you should go for the Nikon - otherwise you'll always have doubts! Neither of these images would convince me a Tamron was better than the Nikon!
They are not there to convince that its 'better' than the nikon, just that it can offer very similar performance for a fraction of the price.
Well we all have standards - I know what mine are - and they don't include Tamron/Sigma
andy_fozzy
24-06-2009, 20:22
Well we all have standards - I know what mine are - and they don't include Tamron/Sigma
Some of us obviously don't have as much money as you :D
Well maybe your livelyhood doesn't depend on your pictures?!
puddleduck
24-06-2009, 20:24
I am looking for a few images from a Tamron 17-50 f2.8, preferably a close up of something ( flowerbud etc) around 50mm f2.8 in jpeg format with no PP.
Don't really do flowers but I checked my Lightroom database for 17-50 and I have this.
http://www.odysseus-software.co.uk/LensTests/2007_04210047.jpg
100% crop.
http://www.odysseus-software.co.uk/LensTests/2007_04210047-crop.jpg
Bearing in mind this is on a Fuji S5 Pro is a bit soft due to its strong AA filter. but it might give you an idea?
andy_fozzy
24-06-2009, 20:24
Well maybe your livelyhood doesn't depend on your pictures?!
It certainly doesn't.
And I wouldn't want it to. But that's a different thread.........
Claymore
24-06-2009, 20:25
Well we all have standards - I know what mine are - and they don't include Tamron/Sigma
Does that mean my Sigma 300-800mm is crap!? wish someone had told me before i splashed out on the useless bugger
andy_fozzy
24-06-2009, 20:27
Does that mean my Sigma 300-800mm is crap!? wish someone had told me before i splashed out on the useless bugger
:lol::lol::lol:
No it doesn't - and I do have one Sigma - the 150mm macro - probably the best lens they make - but I've had a few others - and sold them again. I know it's not all about equipment - but you must have 100% confidence in your equipment if you depend on it to get the picture.
It certainly doesn't.
And I wouldn't want it to. But that's a different thread.........
maybe just as well eh? :)
Claymore
24-06-2009, 20:31
No it doesn't - and I do have one Sigma - the 150mm macro - probably the best lens they make - but I've had a few others - and sold them again. I know it's not all about equipment - but you must have 100% confidence in your equipment if you depend on it to get the picture.
I do have 100% confidence in the Sigmonster, It comes in handy for beating muggers off! LoL I'm only a snapper so it'll have to do for now.
andy_fozzy
24-06-2009, 20:33
maybe just as well eh? :)
Whatever mate :cuckoo:
It comes in handy for beating muggers off!
I must put that on my wish list then!
Chillimonster
24-06-2009, 20:37
I think when OEM lenses are blindly recommended over the alternatives, it can sound a lot like brand snobbery. Maybe that's not the case here and you have had bad experiences with non OEM glass :shrug:
Me..... I've had the Nikon 14-24 and 24-70 on my D700 and ended up selling them after trying the Tamron twins (17-35 and 28-75) They NEVER let me down and i have 100% confidence in the fact that they WILL deliver when needed (and have done many many times :))
Each to their own. I'm in the market for a 24-70mm! But only the Nikon!
Claymore
24-06-2009, 20:42
I must put that on my wish list then!
LoL
It does attract the numpties when out and about and one prat wanted me to hand it over (he did have a stanley knife, so very hard attacking a disabled snapper)? anyway ayoung lad came into the hide just at the right time (phew) gave them a kicking LoL
I'm seriously thinking of selling up and taking up painting LoL
you think a paint brush is a better weapeon than a 300-800? wow!
Claymore
24-06-2009, 20:46
Each to their own. I'm in the market for a 24-70mm! But only the Nikon!
love your Pigmy Goat shot! got a few myself (goats that is)
Claymore
24-06-2009, 20:47
you think a paint brush is a better weapeon than a 300-800? wow!
depends where you shove it! LoL The pen is mightier than the sword!
andy_fozzy
24-06-2009, 20:49
depends where you shove it! LoL The penis mightier than the sword!
:eek::eek::eek:
Claymore
24-06-2009, 20:50
LoL ooooooooooooopps
love your Pigmy Goat shot! got a few myself (goats that is)
thanks - we had five kids this year and I just sold a pic of one to a zoo in California for a very large $$$ :)
Claymore
24-06-2009, 21:01
Anyway back to the Tamron discussion (sorry guys for drifting), its one I haven't really heard much of but judging by the shots above its pretty good! has anyone got any flower shots using the Tamron?
Claymore
24-06-2009, 21:03
thanks - we had five kids this year and I just sold a pic of one to a zoo in California for a very large $$$ :)
5 kids in one year! blimey are you after Madonna's record? LoL
They are great escape artists too!
andy_fozzy
24-06-2009, 21:06
http://www.flickr.com/groups/37412600@N00/
Claymore
24-06-2009, 21:08
http://www.flickr.com/groups/37412600@N00/
Cheers!:thumbs::D
dapprman
24-06-2009, 21:33
Well we all have standards - I know what mine are - and they don't include Tamron/Sigma
Well you troll the talk, but do you walk the walk :nono:
I'm sorry AWP but you've just trolled this thread, have offered absolutely nothing of value bar one post that shows you will only buy Nikon lenses.
Personally I did have the chance to buy the Nikon 17-55 in the Play offer. ummed and arred about it, told a friend who bought one (and received it) and decided to leave it till the next morning, by which time it was too late. I was going to compare the two and sell the one I least liked.
I like the results from mine, think it's a super little lens. Did I mention it's size ? - comparing to my friend's new toy (see above), it's about 4/5ths of the size, and a hell of a lot lighter. Sure the build quality on the Nikon is exceptional, but it's also very good on the Tamron.
I have heard some scare stories about Tamron quality control, infering that if it's not a 'Made in Japan' lens then you should try them in the shop to find which ones are sharp and which are not.
andy_fozzy
25-06-2009, 06:18
Well you troll the talk, but do you walk the walk :nono:
I'm sorry AWP but you've just trolled this thread, have offered absolutely nothing of value bar one post that shows you will only buy Nikon lenses.
Personally I did have the chance to buy the Nikon 17-55 in the Play offer. ummed and arred about it, told a friend who bought one (and received it) and decided to leave it till the next morning, by which time it was too late. I was going to compare the two and sell the one I least liked.
I like the results from mine, think it's a super little lens. Did I mention it's size ? - comparing to my friend's new toy (see above), it's about 4/5ths of the size, and a hell of a lot lighter. Sure the build quality on the Nikon is exceptional, but it's also very good on the Tamron.
I have heard some scare stories about Tamron quality control, infering that if it's not a 'Made in Japan' lens then you should try them in the shop to find which ones are sharp and which are not.
:clap: :plusone: :clap:
Well we all have standards - I know what mine are - and they don't include Tamron/Sigma
I agree with the comments following this, but without the snobbish overtones.
If i was shooting weddings, with canon kit, I would have L glass.
unfortunately my budget for my hobby does not include £1000 lens options.
the most expensive I think I have is the 50-150 f2.8 sigma. frankly I would have rather had the 70-200 f2.8 IS...guess why I went for the sigma?
my choice for walk about lens lovliness on my trusty 40D is
16-35L IS 2.8
17-40L
17-55 IS 2.8
Tamron 17-50 2.8
18-55 kit lens
(also I need mid range zoom fast glass for events (ring side fighting) that I shoot)
I can't presently justify the costs vs the rewards.
however, the tamron has been a pretty trusty lens for me, rarely letting me down and price vs performance does a good job. also for touristy papping, which is partly what it's for...the weight is very aggreeable.
i'll upgrade to the 17-55 maybe next year...but for now the tamron will do nicely
same with picking your camera body, ideally I'd have a 1Dn or a D3 with similarly priced glass
have seen some lovely D3 shots at <6000 ISO...wow
5 kids in one year! blimey are you after Madonna's record? LoL
They are great escape artists too!
LOL I reread his post too on a double take before I realised the true meaning...:nuts:
Weetobix
25-06-2009, 11:19
not a flower, and taken with a Canon, but some of my close ups of a moving target with the Tamron 17-50
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3009/2952215998_8b5529ec74.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/weetobix/sets/72157608151234257/)
Click for more
all shot on a 50D @ f2.8 iso 200 jpgs, NO PP
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3336/3659191273_34e253bc46.jpg
100% crop
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3363/3659995342_933b68c2e6_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3616/3659205877_8450f1efd5_o.jpg
100% crop
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2446/3659205709_0fc3336e61_o.jpg
Raymond Lin
25-06-2009, 12:39
Straight out of the camera, only resized in photoshop with no PP.
http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/5246/bec.jpg (http://img241.imageshack.us/i/bec.jpg/) http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/1724/kath.jpg (http://img142.imageshack.us/i/kath.jpg/)
Claymore
25-06-2009, 15:53
not a flower, and taken with a Canon, but some of my close ups of a moving target with the Tamron 17-50
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3009/2952215998_8b5529ec74.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/weetobix/sets/72157608151234257/)
Click for more
Now that's a real Cutie! LoL
I think you should go for the Nikon - otherwise you'll always have doubts! Neither of these images would convince me a Tamron was better than the Nikon!
If chillimonster's cropped photo doesn't convince you that the Tamron is sharp - could you perhaps show us what you might be looking for in a lens?
Here's a couple I like with the 17-55mm
http://awp.co.uk/pics/AW4_2546.jpg
http://awp.co.uk/pics/AW4_2402.jpg
both shot with a D2Hs. The build quality and feel of the lens is fantastic.
and one shot with a D300 -
http://awp.co.uk/pics/AW1_4631.jpg
Here's a couple I like with the 17-55mm
Sorry...but they're no sharper than what the Tamron will deliver.
General consensus in reviews I read seems to be that, except for the extremes, the quality of image is on par with equivalent Nikkor, but at half the price.
A few quickies from the garden this evening, all at f/2.8 50mm
#1
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/3108/0114.jpg
#2
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/3108/0222.jpg
#3
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/3108/0323.jpg
#4
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/3108/0418.jpg
#5
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/3108/0520.jpg
#6
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/3108/0616.jpg
Sorry...but they're no sharper than what the Tamron will deliver.
General consensus in reviews I read seems to be that, except for the extremes, the quality of image is on par with equivalent Nikkor, but at half the price.
Didn't expect you to say anything else - but I won't be swapping my Nikkor for a Tamron at any price. :)
Damn, I thought about the Tamron but bought the 18-70 nikon, just for the extra reach really.... not sure if i made the right choice!
Claymore
25-06-2009, 19:13
Didn't expect you to say anything else - but I won't be swapping my Nikkor for a Tamron at any price. :)
Oh go'on I'll swap you 3 Goats and a Pot Belly Piglet for the Nikkor LoL (so I can show people what not to buy) LoL I am a Canon man after all
Richie15
25-06-2009, 21:59
Don't really do flowers but I checked my Lightroom database for 17-50 and I have this.
http://www.odysseus-software.co.uk/LensTests/2007_04210047.jpg
100% crop.
http://www.odysseus-software.co.uk/LensTests/2007_04210047-crop.jpg
Bearing in mind this is on a Fuji S5 Pro is a bit soft due to its strong AA filter. but it might give you an idea?
Puddleduck is there anyway round improving iQ due to the AA filter apart from using USM in photoshop?
Here you go Tamron 17-50@40mm 1/80th 2.8, D2x
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e121/Andrewboon/1750-1.jpg
and one of my little nephew
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e121/Andrewboon/1750-1-2.jpg
dapprman
25-06-2009, 22:29
Lets look at it another way, and leave AWP partly happy.
You will not go wrong with either lens image quality wise.
Tamron +
Size
Under half the price of the Nikon
Tamron -
If it's made in China, not Japan you need to test it before buying due to legacy QA issues there.
Nikon+
Badge
Bomb proof build quality
Nikon-
Cost
Size compared to rivals
The question - if you'r spending that much, shouldn't you go for the 24-70 f2.8, leaving yourself the chance of the full frame 14-24 f2.8 as well at a later stage.
Some of us like a big lens though!
I assume we would need to buy 'in the flesh' to guarantee a made in Japan one?
Martyn...
26-06-2009, 07:14
Review of both by Thom Hogan, a pretty level headed reviewer.
Nikkor 17-55 LINK (http://www.bythom.com/1755lens.htm)
Tamron 17-50 LINK (http://www.bythom.com/1750lens.htm)
clicktor
02-09-2009, 19:50
Just a warning that the Tamron's AF motor is considered to be one of the loudest around. I certainly couldn't purchase the lens having heard one unfortunately so I went for the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 instead.
To the user above "AWP", you are embarrassing yourself with such comments. Don't put down a lens when you haven't any experience with it. I'm going to assume from your blunt snobbish remarks that you have none with this lens and are merely brand scaremongering based on your logical opinion of anything non Nikon. If you have experience with one then I take the above back, but would insist you must have had a bad copy as this lens is considered to give massive bang per buck with very good image quality even wide open.
You're entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I have a great 17-55mm - that's all I'm saying.
david1701
02-09-2009, 22:15
Just a warning that the Tamron's AF motor is considered to be one of the loudest around. I certainly couldn't purchase the lens having heard one unfortunately so I went for the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 instead.
To the user above "AWP", you are embarrassing yourself with such comments. Don't put down a lens when you haven't any experience with it. I'm going to assume from your blunt snobbish remarks that you have none with this lens and are merely brand scaremongering based on your logical opinion of anything non Nikon. If you have experience with one then I take the above back, but would insist you must have had a bad copy as this lens is considered to give massive bang per buck with very good image quality even wide open.
it aint that loud, and I'm 99% sure the canon one is better than my tamron so I guess the nikon would be too, more cash more quality. Yeah the tammy is great bang for buck but don't get personal with members
clicktor
03-09-2009, 07:30
it aint that loud, and I'm 99% sure the canon one is better than my tamron so I guess the nikon would be too, more cash more quality. Yeah the tammy is great bang for buck but don't get personal with members
I'm not sure what you mean on both counts there. Are you suggesting the Canon 17-55mm IS f/2.8 is better than the Tamron equivalent? I would expect so at 3 times the price ;) It is better. Many reviews state this. As for getting personal with members, I didn't think I did.
As for the AF motor, there has been some dispute over whether it is that loud or not. obviously it is subjective but also there appear to be some lenses made in Taiwan and some Japan. Japan have been said to have a less noisy motor. Anyway, the one I heard in a shop was ridiculous and I could never use it without being embarrassed of the noise for me personally.
Play nicely everyone please. It's only a lens after all. :)
this thread interests me because I have a tamron 17-50 but might upgrade to the canon 17-55 IS
it's supposed to be pin sharp.
now my tamron is pin sharp and amazing...at times, otherwise it's just pretty damn good
also I've missed the odd 'critical' shot with the tamron
will give it a good work out at the next fight gig on a weeks time.
now however, tamron have released the 17-50 VR.....nikon first, then canon maybe later in the year.....
it's all to play for, I will probs hire a 17-55 IS from LFH in november (I have a wedding to go to) and to a compare for my own benefit before parting with oodles of cash!
this thread interests me because I have a tamron 17-50 but might upgrade to the canon 17-55 IS
it's supposed to be pin sharp.
now my tamron is pin sharp and amazing...at times, otherwise it's just pretty damn good
also I've missed the odd 'critical' shot with the tamron
will give it a good work out at the next fight gig on a weeks time.
now however, tamron have released the 17-50 VR.....nikon first, then canon maybe later in the year.....
it's all to play for, I will probs hire a 17-55 IS from LFH in november (I have a wedding to go to) and to a compare for my own benefit before parting with oodles of cash!
Not wishing to divert this thread too much from the original question, but I recently and directly compared the Tamron 17-50 with the Canon 17-55 IS.
The Tamron was very close to the Canon in terms of IQ, but I got more 'keepers' with the Canon (due to f2.8 and IS). The new Tamropn will be an interesting proposition...
hsuffyan
03-09-2009, 13:32
the only way to settle this debate is for everyone to switch to Canon.. we dont argue whether the 17-55 IS 2.8 is better or the tamron. you nikonians are so rowdy. no wonder they call it the dark side :lol:
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.