Tamron 17-50 something wrong?

M

markinhifi

Well-known member
The first image is from my Canon 50mm, the second image is from my Tamron 17-50mm zoomed in to 50mm. There's a very clear difference between these two images.

I noticed it last night as I was filming. It all seemed a little foggy but I thought it was in my head until I went home and checked out the clips and sure enough, it was all a little blurry.

Is this normal behavior for this lens? It's the SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II VC LD Aspherical (IF).

1.jpg




2.jpg

 
Are you sure you didn't miss focus? I have both lenses you mentioned and the Tamron is a sharp lens. I've had no problems with it. The Canon 50mm is little sharper towards the edges, but they're basically both nice and sharp
 
gene_can_sing said:
Are you sure you didn't miss focus? I have both lenses you mentioned and the Tamron is a sharp lens. I've had no problems with it. The Canon 50mm is little sharper towards the edges, but they're basically both nice and sharp
Click to expand...
Nope, it's in focus. I just took about 10 more shots to make sure. They all look the same.
 
I bought 2 Tamron 17-50 VC's just to be sure I got a good one. Returned both and switched to the 17-55 Canon. Despite all i have read here I don't think its that sharp. The Canon clearly beats the Tamron even through the eyepiece. Actually my old 28-70 Tokina (1.6-2.8) with a Nikon adapter was sharper.

Maybe the non VC is better but many here have said they're the same. Don't know why it has such a great reputation.
 
I just did a minor remake of your test with the NON-VC tamron 17-50 2.8, and there is no sharpness decrease...
 
I Had had a Tamron 17-50 also little foggy, sent it to repairs and it was a fungus in the lens,
yes "fungus" 3 month old lens and it's not covered in the warranty ,
no more Tambron for me ;(
 
I just ran another test with VC off and it looks the same. So I guess the lens really is just that terrible, eh? Only reason I didn't go for the Canon 17-55 is because it's HUGE. But i'm starting to re-think that decision.
 
I'm very interested in this as I've heard that the Tamron 17-50 beats the Tokina 16-50 for sharpness. For the price I wouldn't consider the 1000$ canon a reasonable competitor to either (it is double the price so of course you get what you pay for).

Anyone else want to way in on this as the Tamron 17-50 (non vc) is rated as a 9.2 and a DVXuser favorite on the lens list...
 
cjwolff said:
see for yourself

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
Click to expand...


I've been looking at the sharpness between many of the lenses on this site and although the comparison between the Canon 17-50 f2.8 and the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 may be dramatic wide open, is not as horrible in mid range f'stops. The comparison between the kit 18-55 3.5/5.6 and the Tamron is also striking, and what I need to replace. I also compared the VC and non VC lenses and the non is sharper with better contrast from the side by side shots.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...Comp=400&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&Lens=455

Wide open the Tamron has a few pitfalls, but it can be worked around. When the Tamron is stopped down to f4 and beyond it's not bad. I really just need a lens for HD video that won't change exposure. The 18-55 is killing me having to fiddle with two buttons at once to change exposure, and correct focus at the same time. Between that and keeping focus it's a little out of control to say the least.
For the difference in price between the Canon 17-50mm 2.8 and the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 non VC (Even with it's work arounds) for the same cost or less, I can also add a few Canon primes to level the playing field when I need sharper low light focus. Canon 50mm f1.8 / Canon 28mm f1.8. These primes will also be used on the 5DIII I plan to get when ever it's released.
I also use a Century x.7 wide adapter with the 18-55 giving me about a 12.5mm view and sharp in daylight. The Tamron 17-50 would be a bit sharper and with the 17mm x.7 combo would get me to about 11.5mm view. (This Century lens is the only thing keeping me from getting the 11-16 Tokina.)
I was pretty shocked when I saw the first video shelf pictures in this thread, but for a controlled situation like that it's easy to make another lens choice. I don't think general field work in daylight would cause many problems since I'm usually shooting at 1/50th sec. and usually f5.6/f11 range.

I just went back on the site and is it my imagination or is the Tamron 17-50 2.8 sharper than the Canon 17-50 2.8 at a 17mm focal length wide open in this side by side?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Here is another side by side zoomed all the way in to 50mm/55mm at f4 where I find myself shooting often. These two side by sides look similar.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=400&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLI=4&API=1

I also noticed a few moire colors in the Canon 55mm corner detail that the are not present in the Tamron 50mm corner detail.

If these tests are accurate the Tamron along with a few Canon primes sounds like a great deal

So for my money it's the

Canon 17-55 2.8 at B&H $1,079

or

Tamron 17-50 2.8 non VC $459
Canon 28mm 1.8 $459
Canon 50mm 1.8 $ 99
Total cost $1,017

or

Tamron 17-50 2.8 non VC $459
Tokina 11-16 2.8 $599
Total cost $1,058
 
Last edited:
how did you focus? autofocus or manual focus? if in autofocus, please try using the zoom after autofocusing and check if it is in focus cause if not the lens is not properly calibrated. I have my 17-50 non vc and it behaves like that but once in focus it is sharp.
 
MTS said:
how did you focus? autofocus or manual focus? if in autofocus, please try using the zoom after autofocusing and check if it is in focus cause if not the lens is not properly calibrated. I have my 17-50 non vc and it behaves like that but once in focus it is sharp.
Click to expand...


That's interesting. can you shoot a similar still shot at 50mm wide open of a book or video shelf to see if you have a better result. It would be great to see a sharp shot of the same subject.

One test I read on Photozone.com states the following about shooting flat fields 17 the wide end but shouldn't effect the performance at 50mm.

Photozone.com/
On the downside the extreme corners showed a very strong degree of field curvature at 17mm and a little less so at 24mm. This means that the focus plane isn't flat but it bends towards to corners.
fieldcurvature.gif

As a consequence you will end with out-of-focus corners when shooting flat or very deep objects at large aperture settings (see the 17mm f/2.8 sample shot below). The problem will be reduced when stopping down thus increasing the depth-of-field around the curved focus plane.

Here is another test comparison between the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 wide open at f2.8 along side the 50mm f1.8 stopped down to 2.8. At the same stop the 50mm is 100% sharper which is what you would expect.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=400&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=2

The Tamron 15-50 2.8 isn't perfect, but a very nice lens for the money. If you know what to watch out for and if you are willing to use the 50mm 1.8 prime in situations they are good on a budget.
 
Last edited:
My issue is the only reason i would get the tamron 2.8 is so I can shoot at 2.8 in low light. It seems it opens up a handful of problems when doing this.

So If you have to stop down to f4 would the canon EF 17-40 f4 be a better choice even though its more $... ? its not a efs so you have much more flexibility when upgrading bodies.
 
MadHMC150 said:
So If you have to stop down to f4 would the canon EF 17-40 f4 be a better choice even though its more $... ? its not a efs so you have much more flexibility when upgrading bodies.
Click to expand...

I agree after a lot of comparisons the 17-40mm f4 L is the best choice for me. It's very sharp and half the price of the 16-35mm 2.8L.
A 5D body may be another good choice as an add on just for wide work. I already have a 24mm 2.8 manual prime then I can have a 2nd camera system to work with at the same time.
 
the tamron seems to beat the canon at 17mm 2.8
i'm confused. i better not get any of them and go with primes :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top