I picked up the Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non VC) and I have to say I have been very disappointed. This lens was touted as being incredibly sharp and excellent in low light situations. I have found this lens to be the complete opposite. I'm using this on my T3i and was looking for an upgrade over the kit lens. No dice...Anyone else know what I'm talking about?
The Tamron may need an autofocus microadjustment to work well with your specific camera. Unfortunately, the T3i doesn't have that feature.
You might try borrowing a friend's 50D, 70D or 7D to see if that's the case. But really, it would simply be an academic exercise. The lens would need to be returned regardless of whether or not it was an AFMA issue or a lens performance issue because of the body you're using it with.
Thanks for the info Sean!
You may be able to see for yourself if you have an AFMA issue by setting the aperture to f/2.8 and running it through the AFMA tests. The DYI part at the bottom. When testing a new lens, I often set up something similar, but even simpler. My countertops have a pattern to them and I put a high contrast box with good lighting on them. I then shoot 5-10 shots with camera parallel to the box and the center AF point at the same point of the box (tripod mounted would help) and I see if the focal plane is in front or behind where it should be. I also sometimes see the focal plane bouncing around.
...Maybe the lens is just overrated….?
i have that same lens and i find it quite good. noticably sharper than the 18-135 stm lens i had before.
Stuart Edwards
1DX Mark II , 6D , Samyang 14mm f2.8 ,Sigma 85mm f1.4A , 24-105mm f/4L IS , 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II ,100-400 f5.6L II , 300mm f/2.8L II , EF 1.4x III , EF 2x III, 430EX II
To help you decide on returning for a replacement or a refund, you should check what results other real-world people are getting. I do this check before buying any lenses.
Google for "flickr pool (name of lens)", or https://www.flickr.com/groups/37412600@N00/ for your Tamron 17-50mm.
Go through the images, looking for non-resized ones with EXIF intact, and wide apertures. If one looks blurry, verify it isn't because they were shooting at a ridiculously low shutter speed, or from noise reduction because they used ISO 6400... rule out the obvious. I find photos of animals good to judge sharpness, because of their fur.
On Flickr - Namethatnobodyelsetook on Flickr
R8 | R7 | 7DII | 10-18mm STM | 24-70mm f/4L | Sigma 35mm f/1.4 | 50mm f/1.8 | 85mm f/1.8 | 70-300mm f/4-5.6L | RF 100-500mm f/4-5-7.1L
That was shot with the Tamron on AF
I read lots of reviews and looked at other folks images. With mine
I don't seem to get what I was expecting...
Reply With Quote
