The jury is still out on this one ...

[ddt0725]

Not too long ago I sold my Canon 17-5mm that I had only bought new about a year ago and I have mised it ever since (amongst a bunch of other lenses, flashes & accessories). Dumb decision to sell the 17-55mm I knowbut I wasn't using it enough to justify having it and I had hoped to own a full frame by now which is no longer going to happen. Anyway, I couldn't bring myself to spend another grand on another one nor could I even bring myself to buy it used or refurbished.

Since I have been extremely happy with my decision to buy the Sigma 85mm after I sold my Canon 85mm 1.8, I thought I would give Tamron a chance with their 17-50mm. After reading everywhere that the non-VC was better that is what I bought about a week ago. Well, I am already on my second copy of the lens.

For my needs and level of skill, it makes more sense to have lenses in this price range and I guess I am ok with it if I don't compare it to the 17-55mm or even the quality of the Sigma 85mm.

Here are a few shots I've taken with the second copyso far ...

The first 3 the color is alittle off due to the lighting in my house but the sky really did look like that after a bad storm blew thru at sunset. I am mostly concerned with sharpness and that it focuses where it should. No matter where I set the microadjustment on the first copy, it would focus wherever it wanted to sometimes.



With a -2 microadjustment













At a -3 microadjustment ...











Opinions welcome! Do you think it is a keeper?

I'm still trying to talk my daughter into letting me post some shots I took of her!

[Daniel Browning]

They all look great to me! Maybe see how some of them look in an 8x10 or a larger print before you make the final decision, though.

[Sean Setters]

Denise-


When testing out the sharpness of a lens, or AF for that matter, do some controlled tests at ISO 100 (not 400 or 500) in good light. It looks like the camera or post processing is introducing some noise correction that is having a negative impact on sharpness, and the lack of light may have been an issue in focusing. My 17-55mm f/2.8 IS has trouble in relatively dim light, so it

[ddt0725]

Thanks, Daniel! I didn

[ddt0725]

Thanks, Sean ...I will run a few controlled tests this weekend when I have better light available and see how it goes. These shots were just a quick run thru after work the last couple days. I also was checking to see if it would work out ok for me handheld without VC (or IS). I do ok usually with my Sigma and a couple Canon lenses that don't have it.


I am also debating whether to go thru my archives and line it up against some shots I took with the 17-55mm.


Hmmm ...on second thought, maybe not! It might just make me cry!

[thekingb]

Denise - for my money, at least at web forum resolutions, those shots look very sharp with very good contrast. And remember: it

[ddt0725]

Thanks, Brian! That is what I keep telling myself! Plus I did get a rebate on it and when I called buydig to get my # to return the first copy, he gave me another $10 off the second.


BTW - I

[thekingb]

Denise - funny you mention Horicon Marsh. Unfortunately I have never been there, and I hadn

[DavidEccleston]

I looked at a few of the original size images on flickr (click through to flickr, right click on image and choose original). Assuming this copy is focusing where you expect, it looks pretty good to me. On the last image I can count the dogs eyelashes. On the second one the "mustache and beard" hairs look pretty sharp.

[Fast Glass]

They look good at this low resolution but you can