Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC

R

-Rob-

Say Cheese!...Oh, and call me Susan
Messages
3,931
Edit My Images
No
I've recently taken delivery of a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC which I've not had a chance to use in anger but I've just done a small comparison of it with my other 2 lenses the Nikon 50mm f1.4 and the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR. Price wise the 17-50mm and the 50mm aren't miles apart but usually you'd expect the prime lens to the the sharper with better contrast. The 70-200mm is clearly more expensive and a totally different lens but as that the lens I have then I threw it in to the mix anyway.

So, it was dark when I did my test so I was indoors using flash. I chose my daughters High School Musical curtains and a Build-a-Bear as my subjects. The 17-50 and the 50mm were taken at 50mm and the 70-200mm at 70mm. Each crop is at 100% then resized so they are all the same. All images were taken at f3.2 so that none of them were wide open.

Here's the results:

CurtainComparison.jpg


BearComparison.jpg


Hopefully over the weekend I'll get out in natural daylight and give the Tamron more of a test at different focal lengths and apertures and I'll see if the results get any better. My first reaction is that the Tamron is nowhere near as sharp as either of the Nikon lenses and the contrast isn't as good either. I'm reserving judgement for now though.
 
It's nice to see finally see a few shots taken with this lens on this forum.
Any chance of posting some photos at f/2.8 and f/5.6 ?
I've read elsewhere that the lens is tack sharp in the centre @ f/2.8 and the overall sharpenss @ f/5.6 is better.
 
Were they taken using a tripod, or handheld? If they were on a tripod, was the Tamron's VC switched on or off??

Thanks :)
 
Right, further testing as requested. In the bathroom this time with a bottle of shampoo as a subject. My daughter's of course just to keep it consistent. Hand held again with the VC turned off and flash used.

50mm @ f2.8
f2817mm.jpg


17mm @ f2.8
f2817mm.jpg


50mm @ f5.6
f5617mm.jpg


17mm @ f5.6
f5617mm.jpg


50mm @ f9
f917mm.jpg


17mm @ f9
f917mm.jpg


I have to admit the lighting on these isn't the best.
 
hmm, the focusing looks off with the f/2.8 shots?
Can you possibly try a few shots with VC turned on?
I'd like to see what shutter speeds you can can achieve with VC.
Oh, are you using onboard flash or a dedicated flashgun?
As I am not a Nikon user I'm not sure if the D300 has an oboard flash?
 
I'm really surprised at these results.

I have a standard, non-VC version and it's probably the sharpest lens IU've got, as sharp as my mate's EF24-70mm until you start pixel peeping at A3+ sizes.

Maybe a bad copy...
 
I found this review a few days ago.
http://lemon.soju.co.uk/nikon/tamron-f2-8-vc/

It's the only one I've come across that claims the first lens was a bad copy.
I thought this kind of issue was mainly a problem with Sigma QA?
Hopefully 2 other forum members who have just received the Canon version will soon post some test shots.
 
Have you tried playing with AF fine tune on your D300? Best to download a test chart or something like that and then fiddle until you get it sharpest! Let us know :)
 
hashcake said:
I found this review a few days ago.
http://lemon.soju.co.uk/nikon/tamron-f2-8-vc/
Click to expand...

Hmmm. The shots in the review look like they come from a completely different brand/model of lens than the OP's...

My (Canon fit) copy has arrived, but I won't even have time to take it out of the box tonight, so will hope to play with it in daylight tomorrow. Will definitely post some pics at different focal lengths/ap widths here once I've had a chance to put it through it's paces.
 
specialman said:
I'm really surprised at these results.

I have a standard, non-VC version and it's probably the sharpest lens IU've got

Maybe a bad copy...
Click to expand...

Exactly what I'm thinking... I have the Tamron 17-50 and a Canon 50mm/1.8 and it's really hard to tell the difference at 50mm. If the nifty fifty was worth any cash I'd be selling it.
 
Its strange but going by the first two comparisons the Tamron does not look to clear. It almost looks like I do not have my glasses on. Where as the two Nikon lenses look much clearer to my eye.
 
Zilog said:
Its strange but going by the first two comparisons the Tamron does not look to clear. It almost looks like I do not have my glasses on. Where as the two Nikon lenses look much clearer to my eye.
Click to expand...

Have to agree the Nikon pictures look a lot clearer and the colours look a lot sharper and more vibrant. Been waiting for the Tamron now not to sure will wait a bit longer before making my mind up
Bob
 
Well, my copy is either faulty or this lens is not all we hoped it would be :( :bang:
I will get some shots up asap.
 
Can see the older version becoming one of those much sought after lenses that keeps a premium price

Perhaps this newer one will just have teething troubles and get them ironed out.
Am I right in saying its a new design over the older non VC version?
 
Hmmm. May not be as bad as they look on the LCD.
These are straight off the camera, no pp, just resizing.

All 3 are handheld with VC on.
430EXII used (bounce flash from a ceiling 7ft above the book), only one small lamp in the corner of the room. All at 50mm.
1/200 @ ISO400

2.8
2-8flash.jpg

100% crop.
2-8flash100.jpg


4
4flash.jpg

100% crop
4flash100.jpg


5.6
5-6flash.jpg

100% crop
5-6flash100.jpg


Going to get something with some colour in it and take the flash off.
 
tijuana taxi said:
Can see the older version becoming one of those much sought after lenses that keeps a premium price

Perhaps this newer one will just have teething troubles and get them ironed out.
Am I right in saying its a new design over the older non VC version?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a newer design.

Of the 3 reviews I have read on the Nikon version of this lens, only the link I posted claimed that their first lens was duff.
2 flickr groups for this lens: http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?w=all&q=tamron+17-50+vc
There are some stunning photos on there.

I'd be suprised if Tamron have released a Lemon compared to the previous version.
For Canon users this is the nearest thing to the more expensive Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS.
Tamron could potentially take a nice market share away if the new lens is a step closer to the Canon in the IQ dept.

The reviews of the Canon version will soon start to appear and there will be plenty more reviews of the Nikon version as well.
Lets give this a lens a chance before we decide to write it off.
 
Ok some more.

All handheld, no flash, no pp, VC was on.
ISO800 (so on a 450 = noise :()

2.8 1/30s
2-8.jpg

100%
2-8100.jpg


4 1/15s
4.jpg

100%
4100.jpg


5.6 1/8s
5-6.jpg

100%
5-6100.jpg


Am I being too fussy :shrug:
I am wondering if becuase I am still a relative newbie at photography if any issues could be compounded by technique and lack of experience :shrug:
 
They look good to me jnO.
Oh, and now you have posted some shots, I hate you even more :D
 
OK, while we wait for Rob...

I just have to say jNO; Yeeeeeeeehah!

Those shots are a lot more on the money! After I saw Rob's Nikon shots, I poured myself a large gin & tonic and promptly started crying into it :bonk:

However....! Of course we aren't dealing with laboratory conditions here, but I'm certainly impressed with the first Canon-fit-version shots so far; plenty of promise there, methinks.

(y)
 
hashcake said:
They look good to me jnO.
Oh, and now you have posted some shots, I hate you even more :D
Click to expand...

:LOL:;)

Looking through them closer things seem pretty good tbh. Just took some more shots of some little Marvel figures and they are coming out very nice in RAW, converted to jpeg with a small amount of sharpening and they're lovely.
I will get some more daylight shots tomorrow if I get a chance after rugby.
I get my tripod next week so I can get things a little more stable.

The AF is very noisey by the way and the VC probably does take a good 1/2 a second to kick in.


Edit: Glad I saved the G&T from being further dilluted ;) :D
 
OK, my shots are up now. I'm pleased with the results at f5.6 but f2.8 is very soft and f4 isn't much better.

I'm impressed with the VC because at f5.6 I was down to a shutter speed of 1/15th and there is no noticable shake and I don't have a steady had at all.
 
-Rob- said:
OK, my shots are up now. I'm pleased with the results at f5.6 but f2.8 is very soft and f4 isn't much better.

I'm impressed with the VC because at f5.6 I was down to a shutter speed of 1/15th and there is no noticable shake and I don't have a steady had at all.
Click to expand...

When I get my lens and attach it to my D300 I'll have a go at replicating your test... for comparison. How much have you zoomed in?
 
Its great to see how well its coming out with the smaller aperture from a hand shot. Though I am a bit shocked at how quickly it falls off when you open it up a bit.
 
-Rob- said:
OK, my shots are up now. I'm pleased with the results at f5.6 but f2.8 is very soft and f4 isn't much better.

I'm impressed with the VC because at f5.6 I was down to a shutter speed of 1/15th and there is no noticable shake and I don't have a steady had at all.
Click to expand...

I agree with the VC statement. It is impressive, I went down (as pictured above) to 1/8th :eek:
 
Gordon Scott said:
When I get my lens and attach it to my D300 I'll have a go at replicating your test... for comparison. How much have you zoomed in?
Click to expand...
The last 3 samples I posted were all 100% crops from an image that started looking like this one.

original.jpg
 
Nifkin said:
OK, while we wait for Rob...

I just have to say jNO; Yeeeeeeeehah!

Those shots are a lot more on the money! After I saw Rob's Nikon shots, I poured myself a large gin & tonic and promptly started crying into it :bonk:
(y)
Click to expand...

:LOL: I had started to think 'wait until Nifkin sees Robs shots, glad my lens isn't going to available next week'.

Rob, I hope you see better results in daylight.
Although this doesn't help with your results so far.
 
-Rob- said:
The last 3 samples I posted were all 100% crops from an image that started looking like this one.

original.jpg
Click to expand...

I am now wondering if the lens was simply offended by the recipe :shrug: ;)
 
Right, final test for tonight before I go to bed.

Same shot as above but this time the focal length has changed from 50mm to 31mm. Again hand held, ISO800, no flash, 100% crop and focus on the 400F. Shutter speed went down to 1/15th again at f5.6

I think there is a vast improvement at 31mm at f2.8 than there is at 50mm but at f5.6 it seems a lot sharper at 50mm than it is at 31mm. Weird!!

31mm f2.8 1/60th
3128.jpg


31mm f4 1/30th
314.jpg


31mm f5.6 1/15th
314.jpg
 
Just to confirm did you play with AF fine tune to tweak it? I've had 'soft lenses' wide open that needed a bit of tweaking to get them a lot sharper!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top