Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-03-2010, 02:26 PM   #76
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
.


Well, the Tamron 17-50 was never designed to be a bokeh machine, that's not really it's main purpose or strength. Comparing it to the Sigma 50 1.4 with regards to bokeh is really only useful as a reference point, not as a 'this lens stinks because it can't match the bokeh of a 50mm prime'. The Sigma 50 sucks pretty bad at 17mm, too!

But I think the bokeh is OK in most situations I'd use it for. Some examples:











That's acceptable bokeh for a 17-50 2.8 zoom, IMO. I'll whip out the S-M-C Tak if I want to get some real bokeh.


.

02-03-2010, 03:05 PM   #77
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,255
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
.


Well, the Tamron 17-50 was never designed to be a bokeh machine, that's not really it's main purpose or strength. Comparing it to the Sigma 50 1.4 with regards to bokeh is really only useful as a reference point, not as a 'this lens stinks because it can't match the bokeh of a 50mm prime'. The Sigma 50 sucks pretty bad at 17mm, too!
I didn't want to directly compare the quality of the bokeh. Perhaps, I phrased myself in an awkward manner. My main curiosity was the pronounced onion-ring/nipple bokeh (concentric rings) that I saw with the Sigma (with aperture larger than f/2), as well.
02-03-2010, 03:07 PM   #78
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by asdf Quote
I didn't want to directly compare the quality of the bokeh. Perhaps, I phrased myself in an awkward manner. My main curiosity was the pronounced onion-ring/nipple bokeh (concentric rings) that I saw with the Sigma (with aperture larger than f/2), as well.
.

Understood. OK, we'll forgive you this time. Now, say "I love Tammy" three times with your rosary beads to make penance.


.
02-03-2010, 03:16 PM   #79
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,255
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
.

Understood. OK, we'll forgive you this time. Now, say "I love Tammy" three times with your rosary beads to make penance.


.
Heh. BTW, you gave me something new to harp on: the awful diminutives.

02-03-2010, 09:22 PM   #80
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
Jay:

Either some twisted adolescent netted that Eastern Swallowtail and took the scissors to its wings, or the local birds are using it when the feeders run dry. Seriously, it is a wonder it can get airborne.
02-04-2010, 06:08 AM   #81
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,686
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
That's acceptable bokeh for a 17-50 2.8 zoom, IMO.
.
It's clearly a matter of opinion then. I find the bokeh in the flower shots about as ugly as it gets (other than a mirror lens). I have a bunch of standard zooms, DA 16-45, 18-55 and 18-250 and I've never seen anything like that.

Last edited by audiobomber; 02-04-2010 at 08:26 AM.
02-04-2010, 01:55 PM   #82
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
I bought the Tamron 17-50mm to accompany me on the trails. I have thousands of shots taken with it, and none exhibit the bad bokeh. However, when I shoot flowers, I take the Tammy 90mm out.

But, on the trail and many other places the 17-50mm absolutely excels. There is no other single lens choice I would rather have in my hiking bag than the 17-50mm Tamron and here is one of the many thousands of reasons why:

F16, 50mm, ISO 100, 6 secs, tripod


02-04-2010, 03:28 PM   #83
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
I think the 16-45 f4 has OK bokeh too, but the other day someone said it sucked so bad they could hardly stand it

I guess when it comes to bokeh, I adjust my standards depending on the lens, so 'bad' bokeh bothers me less if I know the lens wasn't designed for it.

This is what I use my Tamron 17-50 for:







02-04-2010, 03:31 PM   #84
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Jewelltrail Quote
I bought the Tamron 17-50mm to accompany me on the trails. I have thousands of shots taken with it, and none exhibit the bad bokeh. However, when I shoot flowers, I take the Tammy 90mm out.

But, on the trail and many other places the 17-50mm absolutely excels. There is no other single lens choice I would rather have in my hiking bag than the 17-50mm Tamron and here is one of the many thousands of reasons why:

img

.


Wonderful!



.
02-04-2010, 09:25 PM   #85
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
jsherman999: I guess when it comes to bokeh, I adjust my standards depending on the lens, so 'bad' bokeh bothers me less if I know the lens wasn't designed for it.
Yes, this is precisely how I feel, and not only about bokeh. Lenses are a lot like people, some are better than others, but I haven't met a perfect one yet. And I have been extremely fortunate in the amount of great people in my life.

One of the coolest reasons for coming into the DSLR camp, is to try out all these different lenses--IMHO. Who the heck would want a perfect, one lens does everything, perfectly, all the time lens??? This is the philosophy of all those people who buy those 24X P & S zooms. Anyway, some form of vice in our lives is necessary: I mean without struggle and adversity, life is void of meaning. So, even if they made a perfect, one lens does it all for a DSLR, what would all of us, who struggle daily with LBA, then do??? LOL

QuoteQuote:
jsherman999:This is what I use my Tamron 17-50 for:
Yes, you never have a problem of knowing how to get the most out of a lens do you J!!!

jsherman999: Wonderful!
Thank you!
02-04-2010, 09:51 PM   #86
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,255
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
It's clearly a matter of opinion then. I find the bokeh in the flower shots about as ugly as it gets (other than a mirror lens). I have a bunch of standard zooms, DA 16-45, 18-55 and 18-250 and I've never seen anything like that.
Take a look at the second photo. The sand in the background looks like noodles.
02-04-2010, 11:38 PM   #87
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by asdf Quote
Take a look at the second photo. The sand in the background looks like noodles.
.

Well, I've come to the conclusion that you're just in a bad mood.

Here's some better bokeh for you to make your evening less sour:



02-04-2010, 11:55 PM   #88
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
J:

This second shot, with the blue/purple flowers seemingly dancing for us, is beautiful. Thanks.
02-05-2010, 05:25 AM   #89
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Jewelltrail Quote
J:

This second shot, with the blue/purple flowers seemingly dancing for us, is beautiful. Thanks.
There's a real 3D look to that one.
02-05-2010, 09:21 AM   #90
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kansas
Posts: 18
QuoteOriginally posted by Jewelltrail Quote
Yes, this is precisely how I feel, and not only about bokeh. Lenses are a lot like people, some are better than others, but I haven't met a perfect one yet. And I have been extremely fortunate in the amount of great people in my life.

One of the coolest reasons for coming into the DSLR camp, is to try out all these different lenses--IMHO. Who the heck would want a perfect, one lens does everything, perfectly, all the time lens??? This is the philosophy of all those people who buy those 24X P & S zooms. Anyway, some form of vice in our lives is necessary: I mean without struggle and adversity, life is void of meaning. So, even if they made a perfect, one lens does it all for a DSLR, what would all of us, who struggle daily with LBA, then do??? LOL
This is one of the best opinions I've read. Well said.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, kit, lens, lenses, pentax, pentax lens, range, sharpness, slr lens, tamron
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:19 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top