Tamron 17-50mm f2.8

[Judd]

Has anyone got any experience with this lens?

I'm thinking of selling my 17-85mm canon IS to fund buying it. Reviews seem very good, and I can't quite afford the 17-55mm f2.8 canon.

Might as well say here aswell as in the for sale section that I'd be willing to sell it for £250 plus p&p if anyone wants a 17-85mm lens (it's quite a good coppy sharpness wise). It is good enough for a walkaround, plus the reach and IS, I just want the faster aperture of the tamron for portraiture etc... Spos it depends if you needed the reach and IS.

[Gidders]

I've not used this lens, but if you are looking for one for portraiture a couple of things to consider: -

At f2.8 you will have a very very shallow depth of field and the point you select to focus on will be critical. So do you actually need a lens that fast? Most of my recent portraits in my gallery have been taken with a Canon 24-105 at either f4 or f5.6 and even then the dof is not great.

The other point to consider is the zoom range... ok so with the crop factor, 50mm = 80mm which is often considered the idea lens for portraits but you might want to consider something like the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 which gives bit more reach for close crops, albeit at the expense of the wide angle end.

You'll find review of both these lenses and some of the other alternatives at http://www.photozone.de/reviews

[Judd]

Hi Gidders,

Because it will be replacing my 17-85mm, I need to keep the wide end for other 'walkabout' stuff. I also have a 60mm f2.8 macro for a little bit longer portraits, which will will probably be better than the tamron when used specifically for the task of portraiture. However I'm really wanting one lens that can cater for a lot of situations, so I can keep weight down if I were to go somewhere that I 'may' have the opportunity to photograph stuff, but am not planning on it (otherwise I'd take all the kit, bells and whistles included).

I have worked quite a lot with thin dof, to bring out features (eyes etc...), what I'm really wondering about is the contrast/sharpness/autofocus of this lens. I used to use a 50mm f2.0 on an oly (although that had dof closer to f/2.8 on a canon/nikon), and that had great clarity and contrast. Here's an example:

http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/l...raits/mum1.jpg

I'm wanting a lot for the money from a walkabout lens, probably more than what's on offer, but I hope to get the best I can as it is one of the most important lenses one can own.

[yelvertoft]

Originally Posted by Gidders

At f2.8 you will have a very very shallow depth of field and the point you select to focus on will be critical.

Judd, I think the portrait of your mum you've posted is a very good example of the point that Clive was trying to get across here. I see you've used f/2 as your aperture for this portrait, and though the expression is relaxed and really very charming, the post processing very well done, the lighting flattering, the point of focus is too far forwards. The tip of her nose is sharper than her eyes, which are the bits you have to nail spot-on if it's going to really work. The heel of her palm looks more in focus still, which suggests your DoF is well forwards from where it wants to be. At a smaller aperture you'd have got away with it, at f/2 it's not quite enough. Still a lovely portrait though.

I suggest a bit more practice with nailing the focus point before changing your kit.

Regards,

Duncan

[Judd]

Hi Duncan,

I have other examples that are fully sharp in the appropriate areas, the one I put in the last post was taken with the E-1 (not exactly an easy camera to check focus with), plus it was meant to be a softer focus image (at mothers request!). Here is another, again shot at f2, with a sharp, appropriate point of focus:

http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/l...raits/pic9.jpg

And this one taken with my new 40D and 60mm f2.8, at f2.8:

http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/l...aits/laura.jpg

I should be able to put the focus point in the right place now, that first one being done quite a while ago, bit more experience since then. I mainly want the new lens to give better contrast etc, at least then it gives a better image when I get it right.

Cheers for pointing it out though.

Judd

[yelvertoft]

Originally Posted by Judd

the one I put in the last post was taken with the E-1 (not exactly an easy camera to check focus with), plus it was meant to be a softer focus image (at mothers request!). Here is another, again shot at f2, with a sharp, appropriate point of focus:

http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/l...raits/pic9.jpg

And this one taken with my new 40D and 60mm f2.8, at f2.8:

http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/l...aits/laura.jpg

Very nice Judd, you got it right with those two. I've never used a 4:3rds camera but I understand they have an even smaller viewfinder than the 1.5x crop sensor dSLRs, so I can fully appreciate that seeing the precise point of focus isn't as easy.

As for your comment on soft focus, it is important to note that soft focus is not the same as out of focus or incorrect DoF, they are very different properties indeed. Soft focus was traditionally achieved by tricks like smearing a bit of vaseline on the front of a skylight filter on the lens, Pentax used to produce a specially engineered soft focus lens for portrait work, these days it can all be done in post-processing.

Duncan