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

jsherman999 · 02-03-2010, 02:26 PM

.

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.

.

asdf · 02-03-2010, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

.

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.

jsherman999 · 02-03-2010, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by asdf

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.

.

asdf · 02-03-2010, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

.

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.

Jewelltrail · 02-03-2010, 09:22 PM

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.

audiobomber · 02-04-2010, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by jsherman999

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.

Jewelltrail · 02-04-2010, 01:55 PM

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

jsherman999 · 02-04-2010, 03:28 PM

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:

jsherman999 · 02-04-2010, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Jewelltrail

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!

.

Jewelltrail · 02-04-2010, 09:25 PM

Quote:

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

Quote:

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!

asdf · 02-04-2010, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

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.

jsherman999 · 02-04-2010, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by asdf

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:

Jewelltrail · 02-04-2010, 11:55 PM

J:

This second shot, with the blue/purple flowers seemingly dancing for us, is beautiful. Thanks.

audiobomber · 02-05-2010, 05:25 AM

Originally posted by Jewelltrail

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.

Steady52 · 02-05-2010, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by Jewelltrail

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.

02-04-2010, 06:08 AM	#81
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by jsherman999 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.

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

02-03-2010, 02:26 PM	#76
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	. 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
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by jsherman999 . 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
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by asdf 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
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by jsherman999 . 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
Jewelltrail Veteran Member 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, 01:55 PM	#82
Jewelltrail Veteran Member 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
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	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
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by Jewelltrail 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
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: 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 Quote: 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
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by audiobomber 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
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by asdf 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
Jewelltrail Veteran Member 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
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by Jewelltrail 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
Steady52 Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Kansas Posts: 18	Originally posted by Jewelltrail 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.