Sharpness comparison between Pentax 18-55 and Tamron 17-50mm

Pentaxor · 02-02-2010, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by asdf

The bokeh looks harsh. BTW, do you notice any onion rings in the bottom right? Sigma 50 f/1.4 produces onion rings of confusion from f/1.4 to around f/2 (EDIT: On the other hand, it produces creamy bokeh.) I'm curious what happens with this lens.

I don't get it. harsh bokeh, then creamy bokeh?

are you referring to specular highlights or artificial lightsource? what I noticed is that the OOF circles are ugly when it comes to artificial lighting. the ones created by natural light seems more tolerable.

but anyway, it does show some creamy bokeh as you said it. the K.O. punch would probably be the great sharpness and contrast of the lens. but hey, it's a zoom lens, so give it a break. yes, I know the DA* zoom version would had displayed a non-distracting or ugly OOF circles, but it also got it share of weaknesses as well.

asdf · 02-02-2010, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

I don't get it. harsh bokeh, then creamy bokeh?

I was referring to Sigma 50's creamy bokeh and Tamron's harsh bokeh.

Quote:

yes, I know the DA* zoom version would had displayed a non-distracting or ugly OOF circles, but it also got it share of weaknesses as well.

The onion rings of DA* 16-50 are more subtle. (There was a thread about them on pentaxforums. EDIT: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-photography-techniques-styles/449...eh-lights.html)

taurus9 · 02-02-2010, 11:55 PM

Well, we managed to turn a thread discussing the sharpness of the Tamron 17-50mm to discussing how the lens renders unsharp areas of an image

chinotenshi · 02-03-2010, 01:25 AM

I just picked up the Tamron 17-50mm myself about two weeks ago. Finally got a chance to put it to use this past weekend and LOVE it. I managed to take some great photos with it. I love how sharp it can be, but the bokeh in the OOF areas is just as nice. At least to me, it is.

Also makes a pretty decent portrait lens.

Attached Images

Jewelltrail · 02-03-2010, 01:44 AM

Quote:

chinotenshi: I love how sharp it can be, but the bokeh in the OOF areas is just as nice. At least to me, it is.

I couldn't agree with you more. Nobody, who knows anything about lenses, is going to compare the bokeh of a wide angle zoom to a 300mm lens--that is just plain silly. The Tamron 17-50 is amazing though, even in its bokeh rendering:

This Apple Blossom shot @ f4

jeffrey r · 02-03-2010, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Jewelltrail

I couldn't agree with you more. Nobody, who knows anything about lenses, is going to compare the bokeh of a wide angle zoom to a 300mm lens--that is just plain silly. The Tamron 17-50 is amazing though, even in its bokeh rendering

I love my Tamron 17-50mm (as well as my 28-75), and personally, I'll sacrifice a bit of creaminess in bokeh in order to take a sharper lens over a less sharp lens anyday. Sometimes, I think there is such an over-emphasis on bokeh and narrow depth of field, but that may be just me.

Pentaxor · 02-03-2010, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by jeffrey r

I love my Tamron 17-50mm (as well as my 28-75), and personally, I'll sacrifice a bit of creaminess in bokeh in order to take a sharper lens over a less sharp lens anyday. Sometimes, I think there is such an over-emphasis on bokeh and narrow depth of field, but that may be just me.

well, I think you can have the best of both worlds. had you tried the Sigma 70? but then again, that's a prime lens.

jeffrey r · 02-03-2010, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

well, I think you can have the best of both worlds. had you tried the Sigma 70? but then again, that's a prime lens.

Well, I do think I have the best of both worlds with plenty of my lenses. But I've also seen some people gripe to some degree about the bokeh of most of my lenses, so I think it comes down to personal taste, expectations, etc. My smoothest bokeh though clearly comes from my DA* 50-135, and that lens certainly has the sharpness as well.

Pentaxor · 02-03-2010, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by jeffrey r

Well, I do think I have the best of both worlds with plenty of my lenses. But I've also seen some people gripe to some degree about the bokeh of most of my lenses, so I think it comes down to personal taste, expectations, etc. My smoothest bokeh though clearly comes from my DA* 50-135, and that lens certainly has the sharpness as well.

mine would be the 50/1.2. the only gripe that people have with it is it is overrated from their perspective. although if it were selling for only $200, I think they would say that it's the best lens in the world.

asdf · 02-03-2010, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by Jewelltrail

I couldn't agree with you more. Nobody, who knows anything about lenses, is going to compare the bokeh of a wide angle zoom to a 300mm lens--that is just plain silly.

Who's comparing it to a 300mm lens?

Quote:

The Tamron 17-50 is amazing though, even in its bokeh rendering:

It's not amazing if you have points of light in the background. The bokeh is very ugly in some situations. Sigma 50 f/1.4's onion rings disappear by f/2, but the new VC version of the Tamron has onion ring bokeh, even stopped down, at f/4. So I was curious at what point do the onion rings disappear, but you didn't notice my posts.

Jewelltrail · 02-03-2010, 11:58 AM

Quote:

jeffrey r: Well, I do think I have the best of both worlds with plenty of my lenses. But I've also seen some people gripe to some degree about the bokeh of most of my lenses, so I think it comes down to personal taste, expectations, etc. My smoothest bokeh though clearly comes from my DA* 50-135, and that lens certainly has the sharpness as well.

When we discuss bokeh, like other subjects in photography, we need to be careful by keeping the discussion relevant. Towards this end, we need to stick with the apples to apples equation. A 17-50mm focal range vs a 50-135mm focal range is not apples to apples. Bokeh is related to DOF: in turn. DOF in a shot is determined by three things; focal length, aperture, and focus distance. The longer the focal length, the shallower the DOF will be for at a given aperture and focus distance. Simply put, telephoto lenses have shallower DOF than wide angle lenses.

So, for example, to compare the bokeh of a 17-50mm wide angle lens to a 50-135mm medium telephoto lens is not apples to apples. Just like comparing the bokeh of 50-135mm lens to a 300mm 2.8 lens would not be relevant. Simply put, wide angle lenses are known for their great DOF and this fits their applications. Telephoto lenses will have shallower DOF than wide angle lenses for a given aperture and focus distance. Even when comparing similar focal lengths, the apertures must be kept apples to apples since larger apertures produce shallower DOF.

The owner of this thread did not open it to a discussion of bokeh; rather, he was concerned about whether the Tamron 17-50mm lens could hold up to the contrast and sharpness of his Takumars. This thread has shown that the Tamron, indeed, can do that.

After that was shown, a peculiar act of hijacking occurred.

asdf · 02-03-2010, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Jewelltrail

Simply put, telephoto lenses have shallower DOF than wide angle lenses.

It's not that simple.

DOF2

Quote:

After that was shown, a peculiar act of hijacking occurred.

Sharpness and bokeh depend on the correction of spherical aberration. They're related in a definite sense.

Pentaxor · 02-03-2010, 01:08 PM

I do somehow appreciate the additional info that asdf mentioned. but refering to the original concern of the OP, which is about sharpness and contrast of a Tamron 17-50 zoom lens, and not minding about COC (bokeh circles) rendering created or displayed by some lenses which is normal and have variations by some some degree, the Tamron is a great zoom lens intended for certain purposes and be aware of it's pros and cons. the lens does serve the OP's purpose or concern for that matter. if the OP feels that bokeh circles are of his prioprity or concern, that would be another discussion and look for a lens that doesn't display such phenomena (which a few say is due to the Aspherical lens element).

asdf · 02-03-2010, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

I do somehow appreciate the additional info that asdf mentioned. but refering to the original concern of the OP, which is about sharpness and contrast of a Tamron 17-50 zoom lens, and not minding about COC (bokeh circles) rendering created or displayed by some lenses which is normal and have variations by some some degree, the Tamron is a great zoom lens intended for certain purposes and be aware of it's pros and cons. the lens does serve the OP's purpose or concern for that matter. if the OP feels that bokeh circles are of his prioprity or concern, that would be another discussion and look for a lens that doesn't display such phenomena (which a few say is due to the Aspherical lens element).

Well, contrast, colors and other aspects were mentioned before I joined the thread. I didn't realize this was supposed to be lens circle jerk.

Pentaxor · 02-03-2010, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by asdf

Well, contrast, colors and other aspects were mentioned before I joined the thread. I didn't realize this was supposed to be lens circle jerk.

that's exactly the idea. anyways, since COC became the focus of attention, what do you think about the kitlens' COC? since the OP is trying to find differences between the Tamron 17-50 and the 18-55, aside from sharpness.

02-03-2010, 01:44 AM	#65
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: chinotenshi: I love how sharp it can be, but the bokeh in the OOF areas is just as nice. At least to me, it is. I couldn't agree with you more. Nobody, who knows anything about lenses, is going to compare the bokeh of a wide angle zoom to a 300mm lens--that is just plain silly. The Tamron 17-50 is amazing though, even in its bokeh rendering: This Apple Blossom shot @ f4 Last edited by Jewelltrail; 02-27-2010 at 01:23 AM.

02-03-2010, 10:51 AM	#69
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by jeffrey r Well, I do think I have the best of both worlds with plenty of my lenses. But I've also seen some people gripe to some degree about the bokeh of most of my lenses, so I think it comes down to personal taste, expectations, etc. My smoothest bokeh though clearly comes from my DA* 50-135, and that lens certainly has the sharpness as well. mine would be the 50/1.2. the only gripe that people have with it is it is overrated from their perspective. although if it were selling for only $200, I think they would say that it's the best lens in the world. Last edited by Pentaxor; 02-03-2010 at 11:46 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax 21/3.2 vs Tamron 17-50/2.8 Comparison	walter	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	07-26-2010 08:34 PM
lens comparison- fa50mm / tamron 17-50mm / tamron 28-75mm	bimjo	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	03-16-2010 01:10 AM
Superzoom comparison? Tamron 28-200 vs Pentax 18-250 vs Sigma 28-300 etc	JayR	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	03-10-2010 12:40 PM
Tamron 70-200 or Pentax 50-135 in sharpness	LeDave	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	11-15-2009 09:53 PM
50mm sharpness: Pentax, Cosina, Voigtlander and Tamron	walter	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	11-15-2008 02:29 AM

02-02-2010, 11:21 PM	#61
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by asdf The bokeh looks harsh. BTW, do you notice any onion rings in the bottom right? Sigma 50 f/1.4 produces onion rings of confusion from f/1.4 to around f/2 (EDIT: On the other hand, it produces creamy bokeh.) I'm curious what happens with this lens. I don't get it. harsh bokeh, then creamy bokeh? are you referring to specular highlights or artificial lightsource? what I noticed is that the OOF circles are ugly when it comes to artificial lighting. the ones created by natural light seems more tolerable. but anyway, it does show some creamy bokeh as you said it. the K.O. punch would probably be the great sharpness and contrast of the lens. but hey, it's a zoom lens, so give it a break. yes, I know the DA* zoom version would had displayed a non-distracting or ugly OOF circles, but it also got it share of weaknesses as well.

02-02-2010, 11:23 PM	#62
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by Pentaxor I don't get it. harsh bokeh, then creamy bokeh? I was referring to Sigma 50's creamy bokeh and Tamron's harsh bokeh. Quote: yes, I know the DA* zoom version would had displayed a non-distracting or ugly OOF circles, but it also got it share of weaknesses as well. The onion rings of DA* 16-50 are more subtle. (There was a thread about them on pentaxforums. EDIT: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-photography-techniques-styles/449...eh-lights.html)

02-02-2010, 11:55 PM	#63
taurus9 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: British Columbia Posts: 120	Well, we managed to turn a thread discussing the sharpness of the Tamron 17-50mm to discussing how the lens renders unsharp areas of an image

02-03-2010, 01:25 AM	#64
chinotenshi Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Hiroshima Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 74	I just picked up the Tamron 17-50mm myself about two weeks ago. Finally got a chance to put it to use this past weekend and LOVE it. I managed to take some great photos with it. I love how sharp it can be, but the bokeh in the OOF areas is just as nice. At least to me, it is. Also makes a pretty decent portrait lens. Attached Images

02-03-2010, 09:19 AM	#66
jeffrey r Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 337	Originally posted by Jewelltrail I couldn't agree with you more. Nobody, who knows anything about lenses, is going to compare the bokeh of a wide angle zoom to a 300mm lens--that is just plain silly. The Tamron 17-50 is amazing though, even in its bokeh rendering I love my Tamron 17-50mm (as well as my 28-75), and personally, I'll sacrifice a bit of creaminess in bokeh in order to take a sharper lens over a less sharp lens anyday. Sometimes, I think there is such an over-emphasis on bokeh and narrow depth of field, but that may be just me.

02-03-2010, 09:34 AM	#67
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by jeffrey r I love my Tamron 17-50mm (as well as my 28-75), and personally, I'll sacrifice a bit of creaminess in bokeh in order to take a sharper lens over a less sharp lens anyday. Sometimes, I think there is such an over-emphasis on bokeh and narrow depth of field, but that may be just me. well, I think you can have the best of both worlds. had you tried the Sigma 70? but then again, that's a prime lens.

02-03-2010, 09:43 AM	#68
jeffrey r Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 337	Originally posted by Pentaxor well, I think you can have the best of both worlds. had you tried the Sigma 70? but then again, that's a prime lens. Well, I do think I have the best of both worlds with plenty of my lenses. But I've also seen some people gripe to some degree about the bokeh of most of my lenses, so I think it comes down to personal taste, expectations, etc. My smoothest bokeh though clearly comes from my DA* 50-135, and that lens certainly has the sharpness as well.

02-03-2010, 11:04 AM	#70
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by Jewelltrail I couldn't agree with you more. Nobody, who knows anything about lenses, is going to compare the bokeh of a wide angle zoom to a 300mm lens--that is just plain silly. Who's comparing it to a 300mm lens? Quote: The Tamron 17-50 is amazing though, even in its bokeh rendering: It's not amazing if you have points of light in the background. The bokeh is very ugly in some situations. Sigma 50 f/1.4's onion rings disappear by f/2, but the new VC version of the Tamron has onion ring bokeh, even stopped down, at f/4. So I was curious at what point do the onion rings disappear, but you didn't notice my posts.

02-03-2010, 11:58 AM	#71
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: jeffrey r: Well, I do think I have the best of both worlds with plenty of my lenses. But I've also seen some people gripe to some degree about the bokeh of most of my lenses, so I think it comes down to personal taste, expectations, etc. My smoothest bokeh though clearly comes from my DA* 50-135, and that lens certainly has the sharpness as well. When we discuss bokeh, like other subjects in photography, we need to be careful by keeping the discussion relevant. Towards this end, we need to stick with the apples to apples equation. A 17-50mm focal range vs a 50-135mm focal range is not apples to apples. Bokeh is related to DOF: in turn. DOF in a shot is determined by three things; focal length, aperture, and focus distance. The longer the focal length, the shallower the DOF will be for at a given aperture and focus distance. Simply put, telephoto lenses have shallower DOF than wide angle lenses. So, for example, to compare the bokeh of a 17-50mm wide angle lens to a 50-135mm medium telephoto lens is not apples to apples. Just like comparing the bokeh of 50-135mm lens to a 300mm 2.8 lens would not be relevant. Simply put, wide angle lenses are known for their great DOF and this fits their applications. Telephoto lenses will have shallower DOF than wide angle lenses for a given aperture and focus distance. Even when comparing similar focal lengths, the apertures must be kept apples to apples since larger apertures produce shallower DOF. The owner of this thread did not open it to a discussion of bokeh; rather, he was concerned about whether the Tamron 17-50mm lens could hold up to the contrast and sharpness of his Takumars. This thread has shown that the Tamron, indeed, can do that. After that was shown, a peculiar act of hijacking occurred.

02-03-2010, 12:04 PM	#72
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by Jewelltrail Simply put, telephoto lenses have shallower DOF than wide angle lenses. It's not that simple. DOF2 Quote: After that was shown, a peculiar act of hijacking occurred. Sharpness and bokeh depend on the correction of spherical aberration. They're related in a definite sense.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-03-2010, 01:08 PM	#73
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	I do somehow appreciate the additional info that asdf mentioned. but refering to the original concern of the OP, which is about sharpness and contrast of a Tamron 17-50 zoom lens, and not minding about COC (bokeh circles) rendering created or displayed by some lenses which is normal and have variations by some some degree, the Tamron is a great zoom lens intended for certain purposes and be aware of it's pros and cons. the lens does serve the OP's purpose or concern for that matter. if the OP feels that bokeh circles are of his prioprity or concern, that would be another discussion and look for a lens that doesn't display such phenomena (which a few say is due to the Aspherical lens element).

02-03-2010, 01:29 PM	#74
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by Pentaxor I do somehow appreciate the additional info that asdf mentioned. but refering to the original concern of the OP, which is about sharpness and contrast of a Tamron 17-50 zoom lens, and not minding about COC (bokeh circles) rendering created or displayed by some lenses which is normal and have variations by some some degree, the Tamron is a great zoom lens intended for certain purposes and be aware of it's pros and cons. the lens does serve the OP's purpose or concern for that matter. if the OP feels that bokeh circles are of his prioprity or concern, that would be another discussion and look for a lens that doesn't display such phenomena (which a few say is due to the Aspherical lens element). Well, contrast, colors and other aspects were mentioned before I joined the thread. I didn't realize this was supposed to be lens circle jerk.

02-03-2010, 02:08 PM	#75
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by asdf Well, contrast, colors and other aspects were mentioned before I joined the thread. I didn't realize this was supposed to be lens circle jerk. that's exactly the idea. anyways, since COC became the focus of attention, what do you think about the kitlens' COC? since the OP is trying to find differences between the Tamron 17-50 and the 18-55, aside from sharpness.