Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II

W

Whiters

Messages
169
Name
Ross
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been thinking of buying a second-hand copy of this lens for landscapes and have had a good read of many previous threads regarding this lens. The general consensus seems to be that this is an excellent, sharp lens which competes with others that are twice as expensive. Many of the images posted on this site and on flickr back this up.

However much of the talk is how well the lens performs wide open and also that its 'sweet spot' is somewhere between f/8 and f/11.

What I really want to know is - How well does this lens perform between f/14 and f/20 (with sturdy tripod of course ;))?

I ask because these are the aperture values that I most commonly use for my landscape photos. I have a Canon 450d btw.

Thanks in advance for any advice given.
 
The 17-50 I had was very sharp in the middle of the image but quite soft at the edges. Also the sharpness drop off after f11 due to defraction. I found the Tokina 12-24 much much better.
 
Thanks for the reply Andrew, that's one minus mark for the Tamron then. The Tokina 12-24 is one I'm considering to replace the Sigma 10-20 that I'm not totally happy with (think I've got a duff copy tbh, might take it back to the shop).

Which alternative lens would you recommend with a similar zoom range to the 17-50? I've got half a mind to shell out for the Canon 17-40 f/4 L.
 
I took this at f/14
5062616445_243e060709_z.jpg


Im not too technical when it comes to sharp or soft or whatever but imo this is a true great lens, i cant get enough of mine at all. I use it solely for landscapes (due to the stupendous cost of UWA's) and its not let me down yet. There is more in the set here http://www.flickr.com/photos/sithornton/sets/72157624997402909/ if that helps fella.

Si
 
Thanks Si, some lovely shots there, and they certainly look pretty sharp to me. Tbh though I don't take many woodland shots like that, many of mine are sort of much wider landscapes, i.e larger areas in the photo, beaches etc, so it's always a bit of an ask for any lens to be sharp from back to front in my shots. Maybe the Tamron's up to it?
 
If you are considering the 17-40, why not have a look at the Canon 10-22 if you want sharpness back to front for landscapes.

Don't forget the wide end at 17mm translates to something like 26mm on a crop sensor.
 
I have taken the liberty of looking at the full res version of the above image on chockey's flickr, it shows the standard Tamron 17-50 problem. Although reviewers say its sharp edge to edge and corner to corner. Chockey's has the same mushy edges and corners as the one I had. You really have to look at 100% crops to see this. You cant really see anything on an 800 pixel wide image.



5062616445_36ea2a0dd4_o.jpg
 
I dunno mate, a bit hard to see because some idiot's put drawn red lines all over the photo ;-) Only kidding, point taken and it helps answer my original question, although tbh I would have struggled to notice that softness without it being pointed out, so let's not let any slight imperfections of the lens detract from Chocky's impressive set of images. With opinions on either side, the jury's still out on this I reckon...
 
I wasn't trying to detract from chockey's great images, I am just trying to point out that the Tamrom 17-50 is not always as good as people claim.

If you can wait a bit longer and can stretch to the price the Tokina AT-X 16-28 may be worth a serious look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top