Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC

[-Rob-]

I've never had to do any AF fine tuning before so I didn't know how to do it. I've just dug out the manual for the D300 and worked it out and done some very quick tests and it looks like the tuning needs adjusting to +3. Like I said, just a quick test for now but I am off shooting for the rest of the day so I'll have a proper test under more scientific controls later on.

I have had an e-mail back from OneStopDigital saying they'll provide a full refund if I send it back so at least I can do that as a last resort.

 

[Gordon Scott]

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.

My lens arrived this morning and have replicated your 50mm tests. I don't feel qualified to comment much as I have not had that many lenses. It is a little softer at F2.8 than F5.6 and the difference is less at 29mm. The VC seems to work well.

However it looks good to me... but will bow to better judges!

The whole picture at 50mm ISO800 focused on 50g


F2.8 100th 50mm


F4 50th 50mm


F5.6 25th 50mm

 

[hashcake]

I'm not an expert but I agree @ f/2.8 it does look at tad softer than f/5.6.
Comparing the 17-50mm VC @ f/2.8 and a Tamron 28-70mm non VC I owned for a few days.
I think the 17-50 wins with regard to the level of sharpness at f/2.8.
Have you played with the microtuning on your D300?
Going on what Rob said it seems like it's worth trying.

 

[jnO]

Ok a mate popped round with his son so took the opportunity.
All handheld, all at 50mm (as that is where people seem to think this is at it's softest).
Bounce flash from a 430EXII off a ceiling approximately 7/8ft above the subject.
All 1/200s and ISO400. No PP at all.

f/2.8

100%

f/4

100%

I am liking this lens more and more

Nifkin & hash I hope this alleviates any lingering concerns

 

[hashcake]

@ f/2.8 they don't look soft to me at all.
The f/4 shots looks better than the previous ones.
I can't wait to get my mitts on mine.

 

[jnO]

@ f/2.8 they don't look soft to me at all.
The f/4 shoots looks better than the previous ones.
I can't wait to get my mitts on mine.

I agree, 2.8 looks spot on

I am getting used to the lens so hopefully my shots will keep on improving.
Bear in mind I am also quite a novice togger so my settings and technique may not be the best

 

[dergit]

It's weird though, that the Canon shots so far look better than the Nikon shots or is it just me?

 

[hashcake]

It's weird though, that the Canon shots so far look better than the Nikon shots or is it just me?

I agree but other shots I've seen taken with the Nikon version have been very good.
It does seem like the D300 owners may need to use the micro adjusters.
I'd also like to see shots taken on a 50D as these also have a micro adjuster (Come on Nifkin, get some shots up and lets see if you also need to use it).

 

[jnO]

It's weird though, that the Canon shots so far look better than the Nikon shots or is it just me?

It's God's way of punishing Nikon owners

 

[zulupentax]

looking at the quality of this lens I think I will soon be in the market for a copy
In canon mount might I add

 

[hashcake]

looking at the quality of this lens I think I will soon be in the market for a copy
In canon mount might I add

Well Sir, I have to say as you are the proud owner of a 7D, would a Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS not be feasable?
To be serious, I think this new Tamron will give better bangs per buck than the Canon.

 

[zulupentax]

Well Sir, I have to say as you are the proud owner of a 7D, would a Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS not be feasable?
To be serious, I think this new Tamron will give better bangs per buck than the Canon.

Darran, you just replied it for me dear sir

I have a Canon 24-105 mm in my wish list so I am looking for better bang per buck on a wider angle lens.
But well, nothing can be ruled out at this stage.

My other alternative that I have been exploring is getting rid of my Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8 and the Canon 18-135 mm and instead get the Canon 24-70 mm L one along with the Canon 24-105 mm looking forward to adding an eventual 5D MK2 as a spare body so the wide angle would be covered with the Canon 24-70 mm on the FF body while I get a spare body too.

Well, this is the plan at least, , could just be wishful thinking but certainly would like to aim it for this.

Any thoughts or ideas around this setup?

 

[hashcake]

Darran, you just replied it for me dear sir

I have a Canon 24-105 mm in my wish list so I am looking for better bang per buck on a wider angle lens.
But well, nothing can be ruled out at this stage.

My other alternative that I have been exploring is getting rid of my Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8 and the Canon 18-135 mm and instead get the Canon 24-70 mm L one along with the Canon 24-105 mm looking forward to adding an eventual 5D MK2 as a spare body so the wide angle would be covered with the Canon 24-70 mm on the FF body while I get a spare body too.

Well, this is the plan at least, , could just be wishful thinking but certainly would like to aim it for this.

Any thoughts or ideas around this setup?

We are going off topic slightly so I will this as short as possible.
I would agree with your options but I would for me, I would consider the 17-40mm L for the 5D MK2 if you are into landscapes.

 

[zulupentax]

We are going off topic slightly so I will this as short as possible.
I would agree with your options but I would for me, I would consider the 17-40mm L for the 5D MK2 if you are into landscapes.

Thanks for that Darran. Will look into that.

So let's go back to the Tammy then . Seems definitely to be a nice lens.

So is the difference between the Nikon and Canon mounts in IQ really considerable?

 

[Gordon Scott]

I've never had to do any AF fine tuning before so I didn't know how to do it. I've just dug out the manual for the D300 and worked it out and done some very quick tests and it looks like the tuning needs adjusting to +3. Like I said, just a quick test for now but I am off shooting for the rest of the day so I'll have a proper test under more scientific controls later on.

I've played a bit this evening with fine tune... F2.8, 50mm 1/60sec on text indoors with VC. I'm struggling to see much difference between -5 and +20 so think I'm missing something. If you find a way of setting this up that works better I would be interested in having a go. That said, the focus seem to be ok at default 0, so leaving it there for the minute.

It's weird though, that the Canon shots so far look better than the Nikon shots or is it just me?

It may just be our choice of boring text as a subject matter. Maybe we need to go down the cute baby route!

 

[Nifkin]

Right then,

Had to go into the office this morning, then was in town this afternoon, so have just got in and unwrapped my parcel and am about to stick the lens on my 50D!

I'll take a few shots and post a few 100% crops. As I haven't done this before, would someone be so kind as to tell me

• what dimensions do the crops have to be to fit nicely on this site?
• does the filesize of the said crop need to be reduced to be uploaded?

Chairs,

Nif

 

[Gordon Scott]

Right then,

Had to go into the office this morning, then was in town this afternoon, so have just got in and unwrapped my parcel and am about to stick the lens on my 50D!

I'll take a few shots and post a few 100% crops. As I haven't done this before, would someone be so kind as to tell me

• what dimensions do the crops have to be to fit nicely on this site?
• does the filesize of the said crop need to be reduced to be uploaded?

Chairs,

Nif

800 pixels wide maximum and 200k or less...

 

[Nifkin]

800 pixels wide maximum and 200k or less...

Nice. I'll get snapping then. See you in a bit.

 

[clicktor]

Hang on, when did the Canon come out then? I thought I was not on sale yet anywhere till later in November?

EDIT: My god, the Nikon version was £350 ish on Morris Photographic the other week. Now it's £484 !!

 

[hashcake]

Hang on, when did the Canon come out then? I thought I was not on sale yet anywhere till later in November?

EDIT: My god, the Nikon version was £350 ish on Morris Photographic the other week. Now it's £484 !!

Are you sure you are not mixing it up with non VC version?
The cheapest place I've seen the VC version is onestop digital for £368 and before that they were £375.
Morris Photographic are expensive for the Tamron 18-270, considering the average UK price for the non VC 17-50mm is £330, Morris Photographic would make sense @ £350.
They are also expensive for the VC version as this can be bought for £405 here in blighty but there is no more stock until next week.

Oh and with regard to the release of the Canon VC version, they hit our shores last Wednesday and the retailers who had pre-ordered them received them on Thursday.
Even the retailers who didn't have pre-order from customers soon sold quickly sold their stock.
Now, that reminds me....
jnO and Nifkin, that reminds me, I need to see 'cheers mate I owe you a beer'

 

[jnO]

Are you sure you are not mixing it up with non VC version?
The cheapest place I've seen the VC version is onestop digital for £368 and before that they were £375.
Morris Photographic are expensive for the Tamron 18-270, considering the average UK price for the non VC 17-50mm is £330, Morris Photographic would make sense @ £350.
They are also expensive for the VC version as this can be bought for £405 here in blighty but there is no more stock until next week.

Oh and with regard to the release of the Canon VC version, they hit our shores last Wednesday and the retailers who had pre-ordered them received them on Thursday.
Even the retailers who didn't have pre-order from customers soon sold quickly sold their stock.
Now, that reminds me....
jnO and Nifkin, that reminds me, I need to see 'cheers mate I owe you a beer'

He's right, Morris did have the Nikon fit on for £350 a few days ago.
They've realised there's money to make here

Cheers mate, I owe you 2

 

[hashcake]

He's right, Morris did have the Nikon fit on for £350 a few days ago.
They've realised there's money to make here

Cheers mate, I owe you 2

Surely they made a mistake on their website?
I'd be very surprised if they could even buy them at their price let alone offer it as the retail price.

 

[Nifkin]

Morning,

Couldn't post last night coz I had a houseful demanding my attention.

Anyway, did a few quickies this morning; ISO200, VC off, camera on tripod at a few different focal lengths. Would show them here, but have been having a mare trying to upload them to this site; the error messages I receive from the site are far from helpful, and I'm a bit pushed for time today, so may be able to see what I can do later (sorry :shrug. Have to say am a little disappointed with the lens's performance at f2.8 so far. have tried altering the microadjustment on the 50D but I'm still getting much sharper shots at f4 than at 2.8, which are distinctly fuzzy in comparison.

Will report back later and hopefully have some pics on the site :bang:

 

[hashcake]

VC on and hand held shots please old chap.
Otherwise the test shots might as well be about the non VC version

 

[Nifkin]

VC on and hand held shots please old chap.
Otherwise the test shots might as well be about the non VC version

That's assuming that this new lens's IQ is as good as the non-VC version! However I thought I'd begin my testing by checking out the sharpness at different apertures alone, then move on to hand held, VC-on shots. And, from what I can tell so far, f2.8 at 50mm is very soft, with images only getting sharp and staying sharp from f4 downwards.

Will be able to do some handheld shots whilst I'm out and about. And later I'm going to do a comparison at 30mm between this lens and my Sigma 30mm at f2.8. Hope to be able to upload some pics by then.

 

[Bob]

Look forward to seeing test shots as I have one on order from onestop when they get some in stock.Had email saying that they expect price to be same as Nikon
Bob

 

[Nifkin]

OK, here's a few.....

100% crop, 50mm, f/2.8, 1/800sec, ISO200, VC: off, on tripod:


50mm, f/4.5, 1/250sec, ISO200, VC: off, on tripod:


25mm. f/2.8, 1/640sec, ISO200, VC: off, on tripod:


25mm, f/4.5, 1/250sec, ISO200, VC: off, on tripod:


...more to follow

 

[Nifkin]

100% crop, 50mm, f/2.8, 1/200sec, ISO400 VC: on, handheld:


50mm, f/4.5, 1/60sec, ISO400, VC: on, handheld:


...have done nowt with these, except crop them. Am gonna be in and out today, so will try to post more.

 

[Cheng]

If anyone who is posting could ensure sharpening is switched OFF (or post a crop from the raw), and if possible, AF fine tuned to the sharpest setting that they can find, it'd be appreciated.

I used to have sharpening to MAX on jpg and I was in for a bit of a shock once I switched if off - my 'sharp' lenses were actually pretty soft! They became a LOT sharper once I switched to a D300 and could fine tune them though!

 

[Cheng]

I've played a bit this evening with fine tune... F2.8, 50mm 1/60sec on text indoors with VC. I'm struggling to see much difference between -5 and +20 so think I'm missing something. If you find a way of setting this up that works better I would be interested in having a go. That said, the focus seem to be ok at default 0, so leaving it there for the minute.

What you can do is take 5 initial photos from +20,+10,0,-10 and -20. Then see which is the sharpest, then do each adjustment in the range you found the sharpest. Providing you have sharpening switched off, I would have thought there would be an obvious difference - for my lenses, if they're more than say +/- 15 either way they get really soft, and +/- 10 either way, pretty soft.

 

[tijuana taxi]

Definitely sharper at f/4.5, wouldn't that be expected though

Different animal, but I recently bought a Sigma 18-50 OS and wasn't impressed at all, got better results from the older non OS

Very strange, maybe everyone was just expecting too much after the already excellent non VC lens

Not exactly awful though is it (the Sigma was and got took back for a refund)

 

[Nifkin]

If anyone who is posting could ensure sharpening is switched OFF (or post a crop from the raw), and if possible, AF fine tuned to the sharpest setting that they can find, it'd be appreciated.

I used to have sharpening to MAX on jpg and I was in for a bit of a shock once I switched if off - my 'sharp' lenses were actually pretty soft! They became a LOT sharper once I switched to a D300 and could fine tune them though!

When you say switch the sharpening off Cheng, what counts as "sharpening" onboard the 50D?

And whilst you're here, if sharpness is fine at apertures smaller than f/4, wouldn't fiddling with the AF microadjust simply throw the focus out at all f-stops? And how much adjustment would be deemed acceptable before returniing the lens for recalibration in your opinion???

EDIT: OK, found me sharpness controls!

 

[hashcake]

Nifkin, maybe it's me but your results @ f/2.8 with VC don't look too bad to me.
If anything I would accept the f/2.8 with VC shots that you and jnO have posted.
I'd be more concerned at the softness that Rob has suffered with the Nikon version.

What's interesting is that jnO seems to have produced the best f/2.8 results so far with a 450D.
I'm wondering with the design of the lens, it has been optomised for cameras that don't have a micro adjuster but for those that do, an even sharper image may be possible?
I think I read some initial posts from 50D owners that some micro adjustments were required with some lenses that were fine on their other bodies.
I could of course be talking a loads of codswallop and my theory maybe wrong.

I'm still not convinced that IQ is any less than the non VC model as the photos on flickr see, to prove this.

 

[Nifkin]

Nifkin, maybe it's me but your results @ f/2.8 with VC don't look too bad to me.

I've just done a test with the set up being 35mm, f/2.8, Picture Style set to neutral (so no sharpening) camera on tripod, so no VC needed. I then took five shots, each time changing the AF microadjust as Cheng suggested above: +20,+10,0,-10 and -20. And, when the AF point is viewed at 100% in DPP, I can safely say that when it's at the 0 setting the AF is bang on.

Now that I've had a chance to take a few real pictures (instead of too-closely scrutinised test shots), I have to say I'm pretty impressed with the performance of this lens. The VC is a bit noisy and there's a small lag with it, but I seem to be getting at least an extra couple of stops worth of flexibility from it. Yes, it is softer at 2.8, but gradually sharpens up each fraction of a stop until you reach f/4, where it's lovely. This concurs with stuff I read in the (generally very positive) reviews of the Nikon version of the lens (such as this one http://www.photoshopphotography.com/tamron-17-50-vc-review/). I'm not one for heavy cropping anyway, and for portrait type stuff I'm more likely to use my Siggy 30mm f/1.4; the main reason I wanted a fast standard zoom is for gig/party/nightlife shots, where I want to make as much use of the ambient light as possible, so the minor softness at apertures larger than f/4 shouldn't really be critical.

As I result, I'm gonna stop flouncing like a ponce, start being pleased with my purchase, and get out and take more piccies!

Oh, and Darran, yes I do owe you a pint for your efforts during the week to pin down the suppliers!

 

[photostar_1]

I have the "old" Tamron f2.8 and like it, but is it worth swapping to the VC version? I regularly shoot in low light/high ISO situations, and my hands are terribly shaky, so I was considering it..........now I'm not sure. What do you guys think?

 

[Nifkin]

I have the "old" Tamron f2.8 and like it, but is it worth swapping to the VC version? I regularly shoot in low light/high ISO situations, and my hands are terribly shaky, so I was considering it..........now I'm not sure. What do you guys think?

I'm thinking why are you now not sure?

 

[photostar_1]

I'm thinking why are you now not sure?

Because, having briefly read this thread, I get the feeling that perhaps it's not as sharp wide open as the non VC version (which is great) and maybe I would be better off sticking with what I have and putting my pennies towards a better camera body, but I'm not entirely sure that I have interpreted the thread correctly. Just wondered what others thought.

 

[Nifkin]

Because, having briefly read this thread, I get the feeling that perhaps it's not as sharp wide open as the non VC version (which is great) and maybe I would be better off sticking with what I have and putting my pennies towards a better camera body, but I'm not entirely sure that I have interpreted the thread correctly. Just wondered what others thought.

I think, if I were in your shoes, I'd like to see a comparison of the VC and the non-VC version's pics side-by-side before making a decision. The 100% crops here (NOT conducted under strict laboratory conditions ) may show a bit of softness at the widest aperture, but it's really only noticeable if you go looking for it; other than that the lens seems very sharp indeed. Tell you what, how about replicating my tests from the previous posts (i.e. tripod mounted, f/2.8 and f/4.5 shots), then posting your own crops here; I'd be really interested to see if the non-VC version is, in reality, totally sharp from f/2.8; plenty of forum posts I've read concerning the non-VC version is that it also has a tendancy to softness at apertures larger than f/4.

 

[Cheng]

And whilst you're here, if sharpness is fine at apertures smaller than f/4, wouldn't fiddling with the AF microadjust simply throw the focus out at all f-stops? And how much adjustment would be deemed acceptable before returniing the lens for recalibration in your opinion???

Good to hear you're enjoying the lens! Seems like you've found the sharpest setting, anyway! To me, anyway, setting the AF adjust at the widest aperture i.e. 2.8 would be the most sensible as that's where it matters the most - the extra DoF in smaller apertures will probably compensate the front/back focus. This 2.8 focus is probably the baseline 'focus' anyway. If the camera is sharpest after adjustment, then that's all you need to do - I'd send the lens back IF you cannot get an acceptable result after going to the extremes of adjustment - i.e. +20 / -20 (in the D300's case).

 

[photostar_1]

I think, if I were in your shoes, I'd like to see a comparison of the VC and the non-VC version's pics side-by-side before making a decision. The 100% crops here (NOT conducted under strict laboratory conditions ) may show a bit of softness at the widest aperture, but it's really only noticeable if you go looking for it; other than that the lens seems very sharp indeed. Tell you what, how about replicating my tests from the previous posts (i.e. tripod mounted, f/2.8 and f/4.5 shots), then posting your own crops here; I'd be really interested to see if the non-VC version is, in reality, totally sharp from f/2.8; plenty of forum posts I've read concerning the non-VC version is that it also has a tendancy to softness at apertures larger than f/4.

I'd like to......but I'm away from home and don't have that lens, or a tripod, with me.