[Another dyemention]

So I always use my iPhone to go on this forum and never knew about the sample photo database. However, yesterday I happened to be researching lenses from my PC and came across it. I was about to pull the trigger on a 17-50 but after seeing the sample photos taken with a k30 or k50, I have to say I'm glad I didn't. No offense to the people who took those pictures but the sharpness was not much better than my $40 28-105. Not $280 better at least. The sharpness and IQ were just very underwhelming. I know some quality is lost when compressing the images for online and the 50 1.8 samples are consistent with my results, so I feel I'd be disappointed with that lens. I think I'll spend the extra $100 and get a 21 ltd. if the pictures look that good online, I can't wait to see what it can do.
On the other hand, most people seem pretty happy with the 17-50 so is it just my screen or could it be something else? Thanks
Steve

[Adam]

It sounds like you're trying very hard to come up with an excuse not to buy one

Seriously though, it's pretty good optically. But that doesn't mean it can't take blurry pictures in the hands of an inexperienced user, or in tough conditions.

We've got a comparative review here:
Review: DA* 16-50mm vs. Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 Comparison - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

[JinDesu]

Can you post some sample shots with your 28-105 that would indicate what improvements you are looking for?

As an example, here is an image shot with a lens I have (not the 17-50) at 60mm and F2.8: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5588/15238864075_7cd24ffca5_o.jpg

Would you consider that a sharp lens at F2.8, or is it not sharp enough for you?

[cxdoo]

I suppose it depends on where you are coming from and individual lens QC issues, but for me coming from kit lens Tamron was worth every cent.

[esrandall]

I just picked one up from the Marketplace -- and my copy is excellent. I took a long look at the previous owner's Flickr page, and was really happy with the images he was getting from his copy. Regarding sharpness, mine is more than good enough wide-open, and excellent at f/4. I had seen some varying opinions on the Tamron, so was a little skeptical myself. Those varying reviews led me to believe there was some pretty strong sample variation going on, so it was great to be able to see a body of work from the copy I was buying. No regrets here.

[Venom3300]

Couple of thoughts for you.

1) at f/2.8 the 50 1.8 will spank it since it is stopped down and the tamron is wide open
2) stop the tamron down to f4 or f5.6 and it is indeed a very sharp lens- probably indistinguishable from your 50 1.8
3) the people on the canon forums regard it highly also, despite the lack of in body stabilization in that mount

[cxdoo]

Couple of thoughts for you.

1) at f/2.8 the 50 1.8 will spank it since it is stopped down and the tamron is wide open
2) stop the tamron down to f4 or f5.6 and it is indeed a very sharp lens- probably indistinguishable from your 50 1.8
3) the people on the canon forums regard it highly also, despite the lack of in body stabilization in that mount

My M50/1.7 which is rather sharp is not significantly sharper than my Tamron at 2.8. Here is a shot made in rather tricky conditions at ISO 6400, handheld and open wide.

[AldaCZ]

I'm just an amateur but I found Tam 17-50 at 50/2-8 really sharp for portraits https://flic.kr/p/ou4jR4

[Rondec]

The issue is whether you need the flexibility of a zoom or the speed/sharpness of a prime. Primes should be sharper at their given focal length for comparative apertures than zooms. However, the issue is flexibility. Sometimes you just need to be able to shoot at 20mm and then quickly move to 50mm.

As to the comparison with the other zoom you mentioned, I doubt your other zoom would be better than a good copy of the Tamron.

[Another dyemention]

These examples look great on my phone. I'll check them on my PC later. What camera are you using? Also, the samples in the archive with a k5 or k5II look way better than with the k30. So I guess it's possible that it's amateurs like me running around with a k30 or 50 and a cheap, fast zoom snapping pictures. Whereas the k5 owners have more experience. Same with the 21 ltd. prolly not as many beginners own that lens as the 17-50.

[cxdoo]

These examples look great on my phone. I'll check them on my PC later. What camera are you using? Also, the samples in the archive with a k5 or k5II look way better than with the k30. So I guess it's possible that it's amateurs like me running around with a k30 or 50 and a cheap, fast zoom snapping pictures. Whereas the k5 owners have more experience. Same with the 21 ltd. prolly not as many beginners own that lens as the 17-50.

My photos are taken with K5II but there should be no difference with K50 or K30, I believe it's the same sensor.

[JinDesu]

My photos are taken with K5II but there should be no difference with K50 or K30, I believe it's the same sensor.

What he means is that the lower pricepoint of the k-30 allows for more sample photos from amateurs that do not accurately portray the full capabilities of the combo, while the k-5 and k-5II have a higher price point and more complicated features that deter more amateurs from using them.

[cxdoo]

What he means is that the lower pricepoint of the k-30 allows for more sample photos from amateurs that do not accurately portray the full capabilities of the combo, while the k-5 and k-5II have a higher price point and more complicated features that deter more amateurs from using them.

I see. Well I am a complete amateur too.

[nomadkng]

So I always use my iPhone to go on this forum and never knew about the sample photo database. However, yesterday I happened to be researching lenses from my PC and came across it. I was about to pull the trigger on a 17-50 but after seeing the sample photos taken with a k30 or k50, I have to say I'm glad I didn't. No offense to the people who took those pictures but the sharpness was not much better than my $40 28-105. Not $280 better at least. The sharpness and IQ were just very underwhelming. I know some quality is lost when compressing the images for online and the 50 1.8 samples are consistent with my results, so I feel I'd be disappointed with that lens. I think I'll spend the extra $100 and get a 21 ltd. if the pictures look that good online, I can't wait to see what it can do.
On the other hand, most people seem pretty happy with the 17-50 so is it just my screen or could it be something else? Thanks
Steve

I purchased the 17-50 for my trip to Big Sur this spring. I now have a dozen photos on my personal website, all taken with it. It's quickly becoming a very reliable performer. The biggest reason I purchased it was for its flare response. I tend to prefer Sigma zooms, but they don't handle direct sun very well. The Tamron handled a week of Pacific sunsets shoots very well.

For additional reference, here are two threads on PF I have going right now with pics from the Tammy:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/272940-black-white-mi...rr-bridge.html

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/272933-landscape-gran...n-weekend.html

---------- Post added 09-15-2014 at 08:32 AM ----------

what he means is that the lower pricepoint of the k-30 allows for more sample photos from amateurs that do not accurately portray the full capabilities of the combo, while the k-5 and k-5ii have a higher price point and more complicated features that deter more amateurs from using them.

lmao...

[stevebrot]

Tamron 17-50 very underwhelming

Using the search page has its limitiations:

• Unfortunately, the sample size is usually a little small if you filter to specific camera models. For the Tamron 17-50/2.8 on K-30/K-50, the database returned 20 images.
• The photos that popup are rather small and appear to have been munged down by the forum software. This is a kiss of death.
• The results are limited to attached photos and gallery uploads. Most photos posted here are hosted elsewhere.

I did a search for the FA 77/1.8 Limited on the same cameras and was similarly underwhelmed. There was no pixie dust.

Before you pound home the coffin nails for the Tamron 17-50/2.8, you might want to do an image search for the same lens on Flickr:

https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=tamron%2017-50


Steve

(...having looked at the Flickr results, I am seriously wondering why I don't own the Tamron... )