Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 23 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 221
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Talking Tamron 17~50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF)

    Well,

    I gave up waiting for a response from the other third party... the TAmROn lens came in... its now in the bag. "Time waits for no one... no, not even you..." (moody Blues - 1980)

    APS-C frame
    Name:  sphere.jpg
Views: 10846
Size:  78.6 KB

    Crop
    Name:  sphere crop copy.jpg
Views: 10846
Size:  160.3 KB

    First shots: I felt the focus is plenty sharp. Best yet, actually... OUT OF THE BOX. The lens is light... focuses fast... and color seems pure enough. The aperture is wide open at 2.8... I had both the UV and polarizer on it... mounted on a 67-72 adapter ring. This is the ONLY shot of the sphere... I didn't have to take another. That's my kind of shootin'! If you look closely, at the sphere's surface, in the crop... you can see the small surface scratches... this from a non-MACRO lens. Most excellent!

    I had a few discussions with some other photographers, when I went to get it... again, it was agreed that TAmROn just seems to be ahead of the others in mechanical "first use" quality. I asked specifically about the other brands and was told in non-uncertain terms that Tamron sets the pace in third-party lens. This from a guy who has owned the store for 11 years... and sells all the third-party lines along with Nikon and Canon lenses. Obviously, he's got my money... I got his lens... and it looks sharp enough to have been worth the wait.

    The TAmROn SP AF17~50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF)... it's on the street, now. What are ya waitin' for? Christmas? Ho ho ho
    Last edited by DonSchap; 05-31-2006 at 08:34 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Near St. Louis
    Posts
    3,528
    Nice Don. I'd be interested in a 17-50 V 28-75 head to head shoot out at like say 28, and 50mm . . .

    I'd also be interested in some plain-jane lens only photos, no filters at all. . .

    Thanks.
    Nikon D90 | Sigma 10-20 HSM | DX 18-105 f3.5-5.6 VR | DX 55-200 VR | 35 f/2.0 D | 50 f/1.4 D | 85mm F/1.8 D | SB-800 x 3 | SU-800
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Flickr | Twitter

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,590
    I really can not see if it is sharp or not, and if it focusses on where it is supposed to focus... I'm sure some part of that curved surface would be in focus. But the little thingy is not in center... so how to know how the lens performs focus wise?

    I just now noticed... you have a 11-18mm, besides that it is more expensive than a Sigma 10-20 and a Tokina 12-24mm, and performs a little bit less, I do get why you have that lens. But you have now a 18-200, 17-50... and a 28-75... and a 28-105. That seems like an awful amount of redundancy, especially when a Tokina 12-24 f4 and a tamron 28-105 would cover that whole spectrum too.

    Any word on the 28-105mm?
    Last edited by coldrain; 05-15-2006 at 03:30 PM.
    Canon EOS 350D, Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 macro, Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC EX, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM, Tokina AT-X124 Pro 12-24mm F4, Soligor 1.7x C/D4 DG Teleconvertor, Manfrotto 724B tripod, Canon Powershot S30

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Wink Will do... AP

    Unfortunately, the 28-75mm came up "soft"... and is still out being 'tweaked' by TAmROn. I did the lens targets as were discussed a few weeks ago... and upon examination, the Tamron-technician thought it may need some fine tuning, when compared to the Canon 50mm f/1.8 II prime. Basically, that's precisely why I am a little sensitive to OTB returns. Of course there are those who might say using a 'prime' as a sharpness gauge is a little rough on any zoom, but I do want them as 'crisp' as possible.

    When it comes back from California, hopefully by the end of the week, I will do the targets again... 28, 35 & 50mm. I am just as interested in the comparison as you seem to be.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 05-31-2006 at 08:29 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    214
    whoa! the glow on your head is as bright as the golden orb!
    Great photography pose too, but you violated the camera holding position. Your left hand should palm the lens!

    EOS 30D | EOS 350D | EOS 88 | A95
    EF 50mm f1.8 MKI | EF-S 10-22 | EF 28-105 mkII | EF 17-40 F4L| EF 70-200 F4L
    LowePro AW 200
    Canon 550EX Speedlite
    RC-1 IR Remote
    Dynatran Carbon Fibre CF881 Ballhead Tripod
    Dynatran Carbon Fibre CF901 Monopod

    Veritas Images


    VI-Blog

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Focus results...

    will be forth coming, as I group things together with the imminent return of the TAmROn SP AF28~75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD and hopefully, the film-designed TAmROn SP AF28~105mm f/2.8 LD. They were submitted together, but were going through separate processes to be corrected. The '105 required physical circuitry for adaptation to digital. The '75 may need just software or whatever they do to sharpen the focus at the repair depot.

    In fact, once the group is back together... I plan on running the entire series of lenses through the series of photo targets.

    18, 28, 35, 50, 75, 105 and then I'm onto extenders to pair any of them up beyond that for 135 & 200mm. Each range has to be measured off... then shot. I kind of wish I had a set of SIGMAs to see how they'd do to cut down the remeasuring in the future. There may be some folks, locally, that have a full set of Sigmas. It will take some investigating.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 05-31-2006 at 08:32 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Near St. Louis
    Posts
    3,528
    Cold - I thought the same thing, in a way, it almost looks like the camera locked focus on the photographer! LOL

    Don - I'll be patiently awaiting the comparison. Thanks. . . meanwhile, take some more photos with the new baby and entertain us. . .

    Jamie - whats the story eh, FYI Fstopjojo should have his 17-50 2.8 IS by wednesday! so if you want a review or two first from some real people, that should be late this week I should think. . .
    Nikon D90 | Sigma 10-20 HSM | DX 18-105 f3.5-5.6 VR | DX 55-200 VR | 35 f/2.0 D | 50 f/1.4 D | 85mm F/1.8 D | SB-800 x 3 | SU-800
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Flickr | Twitter

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Smile Focus...

    was the sphere, not the reflection in the sphere. That would have been double the focal distance. Lenses are set to fixed focus, unlike the human eye, which tends to drift back and forth, between objects. I probably could go back and try to attempt a "mirror shot", but that was not the intent this round... I wanted the "mirror" itself, not the reflection. The focus was on it. If you look closely at the crop... you'll notice I am "out-of-focus", as would be expected, based on the mechanics of it.

    Just wanderin' around... I took the top of this reflector post... to quickly check DOF... it seemed to do fine. Everything was shot f/2.8, today. (Why have it if you're not going to use it, right? )

    Distance: 1.5 feet
    Name:  reflector post.jpg
Views: 10713
Size:  75.8 KB

    Crop:
    Name:  reflector post crop.jpg
Views: 10731
Size:  170.0 KB

    Admittedly, not all that interesting. It was just a quick shoot... better stuff to come...
    Last edited by DonSchap; 05-31-2006 at 08:32 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Near St. Louis
    Posts
    3,528
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap
    was the sphere, not the reflection in the sphere. That would have been double the focal distance. Lenses are set to fixed focus, unlike the human eye, which tends to drift back and forth, between objects. I probably could go back and try to attempt a "mirror shot", but that was not the intent this round...
    I have had a hard time in the past getting the camera to focus on the reflective material and not that which it reflects. I find it near impossible - my findings support that camera can not pick up the reflective surfacse. unless it has been tarnished by, say, some bird droppings or dirt of some kinda. This isn't fueled by confrontationalism, nigh, but rather careful study, please reconsider. I think you or the tree behind you was indeed the point of focus. Can you supply a print screen of the canon software that will allow you to see your focus point for more consideration? My only supporting points for this standpoint is the fact that after careful study it appears you or the tree is the sharpest in the image [lets for a moment consider that you or the tree is as sharp as you'll get being reflected off that globe, which is in fact responsible for lack of a crisp reflection]. Does it stand to reason that if you were indeed not the focus point and you were at the same distance as the rock in the background we should expect to see you as blurred as the rock? or how about the grass in the background??? how far is that tree from the globe, is it further than both the rock and the grass? if so, shouldn't it also be as "Thrown out of focus" as the other elements? ? ? What do you think after that somewhat stable discussion point has been presented?

    OTOH - keep'em coming . . .

    EDIT - after looking at it differently, if the lens indeed focused on the tree or say you, the stand that holds the globe, probably wouldn't be as "in focus" as it is. Its not totally in focus though. So then a thought crossed my mind - Say it did focus on the tree, the distance to the tree from the lens is not the distance from the lens to the globe + the distance from the globe to the tree, it is actually, the distance from the lens to the globe + whatever difference the camera perceives, probably very minimal distance. The tree in essence is "in" the globe. I still feel though the camera does perceive some added distance in the reflection, its just not the actual distance I had first assumed. . . So now I think I am concluding that what was reflected has been the cause of some misguided focus. I should think if the surface of the globe was indeed the focus point then it should be seen in the support on the left somewhere, but it appears to me that now where along that support is in focus. . .

    Ahhhhh geez - How bored am I right? where is my tylenol rapid release. . . .hmmm maybe its google time. . .
    Last edited by aparmley; 05-15-2006 at 05:42 PM.
    Nikon D90 | Sigma 10-20 HSM | DX 18-105 f3.5-5.6 VR | DX 55-200 VR | 35 f/2.0 D | 50 f/1.4 D | 85mm F/1.8 D | SB-800 x 3 | SU-800
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Flickr | Twitter

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Near St. Louis
    Posts
    3,528
    I'm not the only bored person, but what I found interesting was that when he focused the camera on the text taped to the mirror the camera was out of focus, who knows what F stop he used, but we know you used 2.8 so you should be out of focus if indeed your camera did lock on the globe. . .

    http://qbx6.ltu.edu/s_schneider/photo/focus/focus.shtml
    Nikon D90 | Sigma 10-20 HSM | DX 18-105 f3.5-5.6 VR | DX 55-200 VR | 35 f/2.0 D | 50 f/1.4 D | 85mm F/1.8 D | SB-800 x 3 | SU-800
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Flickr | Twitter

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •