| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/09/2008 01:41:32 PM · #1 |
[thumb]644325[/thumb]
Did some quick tests today with the Tamron 17-50 and compared it against two Canon primes at the same focal lengths. I'm pretty impressed.
What do you guys think?
Don't forget to click the view at full size link.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2008 01:47:45 PM · #2 |
| How handy, I'm thinking about getting the Tamron in the not too distant future to replace my 18-55 kit lens. It does compare pretty well, theres not much in it at all. Whats it like for low-light auto focus? |
|
|
|
02/09/2008 01:54:16 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by McJamweasel:
Whats it like for low-light auto focus? |
In a darkened room with light only enough for a 1/5second exposure at f/2.8 ISO 800. The lens nailed focus quickly. That's significantly darker than most churches I'd be shooting at, so I say not bad at all.
Message edited by author 2008-02-09 13:54:52.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2008 02:32:12 PM · #4 |
| I am REALLY glad that you like this lens! I might get shot for this, but when I compared it to my bud's Canon 17-40L, I could not see any improvement in the images using the Canon. That is not to say that I do not believe in Canon glass as I have lots - it is just this lens gives a little more reach, is a great price, and has really performed well for me over the year I have had it. |
|
|
|
02/09/2008 03:19:56 PM · #5 |
Thanks... unfortunately I can't compare it directly to a Canon L lens, since I don't have access to one. I know the build quality of the L lenses is higher, but then against, I don't need weather sealing or white paint as long as I get good images. The fact that it competes favorably with the Canon primes makes me happy.
ETA: The one thing I wish it did have, but is missing are hyperfocal markings on the focusing ring. Not a big deal for me as I'm no landscape photographer, but you'd thing a wide-angle lens would have them.
Message edited by author 2008-02-09 15:33:35.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2008 07:35:38 PM · #6 |
Pretty nice. I have the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 for "super wide" shots (I pretty much only use it on the 5D as a Full Frame camera). It's equivalent, length wise, to the Canon EFS 10-22mm lens (though not in quality, I'm afraid). The slightly longer end of yours, and the the fixed aperture sound appealing to me. I figure I'll replace mine at some point, looking for a better quality lens, so it's good to hear of your experiences with it.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2008 08:04:39 PM · #7 |
It looks very good.
From what I see, the 50 1.4 is slightly sharper at 2.8, but that's to be expected since it's not wide open. I'm seriously considering replacing my Nikon 18-70 kit lens with this at some point. However, I really need something seriously wide first. |
|
|
|
02/10/2008 12:56:50 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Pretty nice. I have the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 for "super wide" shots (I pretty much only use it on the 5D as a Full Frame camera). It's equivalent, length wise, to the Canon EFS 10-22mm lens (though not in quality, I'm afraid). The slightly longer end of yours, and the the fixed aperture sound appealing to me. I figure I'll replace mine at some point, looking for a better quality lens, so it's good to hear of your experiences with it. |
Well, there is a problem for you. It's not compatible with full frame sensors.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2008 01:13:11 AM · #9 |
I love this lens. It's on my camera unless I specifically need something longer or wider.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 11/04/2025 10:55:59 AM EST.
