Tamron 17-50mm vc

StuartH

StuartH

Messages
6,507
Name
Stuart
Edit My Images
Yes
Picked this up yesterday from SRS to go on the new D90 and have to say very impressed!Read all the old reviews about the non vc being sharper etc but I have no complaints and SRS were saying initially the first batch of vc ones were not quite as sharp but has long since been rectified by tamron and the new model is equally as sharp if not sharper.
Seems fine to me:nuts:


DSC_3476 by StuartHowePhotography, on Flickr


DSC_3481 by StuartHowePhotography, on Flickr

..and the focus can keep up with these two lunatics!


DSC_3465 by StuartHowePhotography, on Flickr


DSC_3401 by StuartHowePhotography, on Flickr


DSC_3458 by StuartHowePhotography, on Flickr
 
Thanks Steve,I am really pleased with it.I do like tamron lenses though and this doesnt disappoint.Bit noisey when focusing but nothing I cant live with.
 
Last edited:
I still really enjoy the sharpness and colours from my Tammy 17-50 VC.

It's a very good value lens.
 
Nice and sharp to me,the only thing I found when I had one,was the VC,used to cluck in,so used have that switch off :)
 
Thanks Simon. Yes the vc does sort of click in but i dont mind it tbh. There was far more of a clonk on the tamron 70-300mm vc i had but once it had locked on images were very sharp. Really rate the vc and prefer it over nikons vr.:cool:
 
Those photos look sharp, but ahem they are after all all stopped down ;) And is it straight out of camera? RAW or JPEG? First one looks a bit over sharpened to me..
 
Looks nice and sharp to me and really nice colours...

Love #3 :clap: absolute cracking shot


DSC_3465 by StuartHowePhotography, on Flickr



Would love another dog, but unfortunately, out of the house too long during the day
 
Jpeg with minor usm...have a shot of beer bottle at 2.8 and 100percent crop on my flickr.;)
 
Thanks Andy, guess thats downside to having dogs,they can be bit of a tie.
 
dejongj said:
Those photos look sharp, but ahem they are after all all stopped down ;) And is it straight out of camera? RAW or JPEG? First one looks a bit over sharpened to me..
Click to expand...

Also agree about first looking bit over sharpened but since switching to flickr i find it seems to make everything look a bit to sharp:thinking:
 
StuartH said:
Thanks Andy, guess thats downside to having dogs,they can be bit of a tie.
Click to expand...

I just feel it's a bit unfair for them to be cooped up inside all day, they should be out having fun - mind you, yours look a handfull :lol:

Oh and I've made the big mistake of showing my daughter these - after laughing and really linking the action shots - I've now had the


"Daaaad, can we have a dog ...............!!!"
 
Last edited:
StuartH said:
Also agree about first looking bit over sharpened but since switching to flickr i find it seems to make everything look a bit to sharp:thinking:
Click to expand...

Fair point, I've noticed that at times as well....
 
..and exactly same images but loaded to photobucket.
1/40 and f2.8 @ 50mm!
DSC_3512.jpg


1oo.jpg
 
Last edited:
seems like a good lens might buy one if her indoors gives me the funds
 
holty said:
seems like a good lens might buy one if her indoors gives me the funds
Click to expand...

You could do alot worse!:D Well worth the money. I will post up some better shots once I get out and about with it.
 
Everytime I see shots taken with this lens it makes me want to buy one but I keep reading about the bad autofocus and i tried one in the shop and it seemed to hunt around a lot? Have you tried yours in low light with auto focus? All of your shots look super sharp for the money!
 
Hi David..not fully explored the lens yet but will say not had any hunting for focus..tried it in dim lighting in the lounge this evenng and it was fine.Its not the fastest lens as far as af out there but its snappy enough.I think it sounds slower as it does seem a little noisy when focusing but its kept up with very fast moving dogs and snakes and done ok in low light.:cool:I was getting sharp images this evening at 1/13 no problems at all,the vc really is very very good!
 
Last edited:
:lol: Trust me I am not a pixel peeper and not one for going mad testing lenses but thought I would test out center sharpness as it has been questioned on this lens when compared to 17-50mm non vc.I am very happy with the lens to say the least.For what I will be using the lens for the corners are not as important but if I am this bored again at the weekend I may do some tests..:D
 
Stunning shots. Looks like a really good combo of that lens and body
 
Last edited:
:)Thanks mate..I am over the moon with it.Really cant fault it at all.
 
Very nice set, just made my decision over the VC or Non VC version of this that bit more difficult!
 
Thanks graham. Depends if you will be shooting in low light but even so the vc is so effective and a nice addition.
 
I'm thinking of trading my Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 in for a 17-50 Taaron, both versions will be sharper (but reviews tell me non-vc that bit better) , its just whether I can live without VC. Given it would be a walk-around lens, vc is a nice to have. One for me to ponder!
 
Graham most of the reviews stating the vc is softer were done when it first came out. The copies made today are as sharp if not sharper than the non vc. Apparently tamron addressed the issue a long time ago. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top