[Marc Sabatella]

Actually, for some reaosn I only saw the 18mm comparison first time around. Seeing the others, the kit lens definitely doesn't look as good even in the center. Still not sure I'd recommend anyone upgrade for sharpness alone, but f/2.8 *would* be good reason!

[GeneV]

the question is how much workflow is needed or the person wanted to invest with?

I appreciate the love for the 18-55 kit lens, especially when post-processed. but comes the question why people still upgrade inspite of the fact that post-processing could help the lens' shortcomings.

aside from aperture speed, what other factors or obvious advantage that a faster lens have over the kitlens and why person prefer them? if there isn't really a significant difference or advantage that either better primes or zooms have over the kit lenses + pp have, then we would had been seeing most of us being contented with an 18-55 + 55-200 combo. do we really think that this is all about marketing a product which have certain characteristics that can be easily copied or recreated?

As I mentioned in a previous post, I did upgrade zooms--twice. However, the big jump in quality came from the primes. For the enlargements that the vast majority of people actually make, I have doubts whether the differences shown here matter. If you are a professional or a very serious amateur who routinely makes large enlargements, every little bit of performance helps.

I'm being a bit reflective about these lenses because I am in the process of helping to put together a brochure for an event I photograph. Several years ago, I shot the event with the two "kit" lenses mentioned in your post. I can see the progression of my lenses. Yes, my recent shooting is better (mostly due to lighting). However, when sharpness has been an issue with using the older shots, it is almost always camera shake, subject movement or poor focus. It is difficult to find a shot that I can't use--even in a fairly severe crop--because the lens was not up to it.

[Jewelltrail]

Rafalas: I'm still not convinced yet if the Tamron 17-50 will keep up in sharpness with my Taks, and I don't want to spend 400$ to get something better than the kit lens, but still far away from the Taks in terms of quality.

Rafalas, here are 2 shots I have hanging around from this past summer. The 1st was done with the Tamron 17-50 @ 50mm, the second was done with the Auto Takumar 55mm 1.8. The tripod stayed in the same position for both shots, the difference in scene is solely attributable to the 10% more reach of the Takumar--that is it. Both shots were equalized for White Balanced settings in AE8, and the Tamron shot was given a slight boost in exposure to get closer to the Takumar's brightness--otherwise, no post processing to either shot. This is obviously not a scientific test, but it does make a statement.

I believe both shots were at f8. Next two posts have center and far right crops. I hope this helps you in your decision--best!

[Jewelltrail]

Center Crops, Tamron 1st


BTW, no Neutral Density filters in play: in the forest, light is scarce.

---

Last edited by Jewelltrail; 02-27-2010 at 01:23 AM.

[Jewelltrail]

Here are the far right crops, Tamron 1st:

[Jewelltrail]

It is important to note, an unfair advantage was given to the Takumar in this comparison. The Tamron shot was taken more than 12 minutes before the Takumar shot. By the time I took the Takumar shot, the sun had come out and was penetrating to the forest floor. If you look at the 2 pics, you will see this.

And, of course, given the 10% longer reach of the Takumar, the shot and crops have all the detail enlarged accordingly. As expected the Takumar renders more warmly, even with the WB adjustment I made--it is impossible to design a perfectly even playing field.

In past tests, my Auto Tak 55 1.8 has proven as sharp, if not sharper than all my 7 Pentax 50-55mm primes. I can not praise the Tamron enough--I carry the Tammy everywhere!!!

[Jasvox]

Actually, for some reaosn I only saw the 18mm comparison first time around. Seeing the others, the kit lens definitely doesn't look as good even in the center. Still not sure I'd recommend anyone upgrade for sharpness alone, but f/2.8 *would* be good reason!

Not only sharper and faster, but more contrast and better colors too, in my opinion. I love this lens....even thought about upgrading further (16-50*), but haven't found a good enough reason yet to consider that lens over the 17-50.

[Jewelltrail]

Jasvox: Not only sharper and faster, but more contrast and better colors too, in my opinion. I love this lens....even thought about upgrading further (16-50*), but haven't found a good enough reason yet to consider that lens over the 17-50.

The 17-50mm is a remarkable lens--prime-like sharpness, to the edges. I spent a couple of months researching my walk-around lens back when I bought the K20d. I wanted the da 16-50mm, mainly because of the weather sealing, but after doing my homework, I learned the Tamron beat the Da in most categories--I'm talking scientific testing like distortions, sharpness, wide open utility, CA control.

But the Da obviously has the WR edge. However, the Tamron, in all 4 seasons, has been up and down many, many MTS on the East coast with me and has not failed me--yet anyway. I think a little common sense is the best Weather Resistance!

[Jewelltrail]

Jasvox: Not only sharper and faster, but more contrast and better colors too, in my opinion.

Yes, I agree.

[asdf]

Jasvox: Not only sharper and faster, but more contrast and better colors too, in my opinion.

Yes, I agree.

BTW, have you noticed the onion bokeh with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8? It may not be the best lens for some scenes.

Strange bokeh with Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 - The Photo Forum - Photography Discussion Forum

[jsherman999]

.

Tamron 17-50 2.8 at 50mm wide-open:



Crop:






17mm f/8





.


This lens deserves some sort of lifetime-achievement award, if you ask me.


.

[asdf]

.

Tamron 17-50 2.8 at 50mm wide-open:

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 (EDIT2: "it" here refers to Sigma) produces creamy bokeh.) I'm curious what happens with this lens.

[Jewelltrail]

jsherman999: This lens deserves some sort of lifetime-achievement award, if you ask me.

Those sure are some great shots to illustrate your point. I agree with you and I can only imagine the accolades it would receive if it had a different name behind it.

[taurus9]

BTW, have you noticed the onion bokeh with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8? It may not be the best lens for some scenes.

Strange bokeh with Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 - The Photo Forum - Photography Discussion Forum

Yes, I have noticed it in some cases, but it was not as obvious as the sample picture on that link. It seems to occur with specular highlights/point light sources that are relatively dim. Will have to look out for it I guess. Keep in mind zooms are generally worse than primes for bokeh:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/files/bokehrankings5.pdf

[asdf]

Yes, I have noticed it in some cases, but it was not as obvious as the sample picture on that link. It seems to occur with specular highlights/point light sources that are relatively dim. Will have to look out for it I guess.

The Sigma 50 is ok at f/2 and smaller apertures and in many situations. However, here's a shot ruined by the ugly onion rings (some of which were sliced):

Flickr Photo Download: tiananmen vigil