What’s Your Preference?

ishootRAW · #1 (**permalink**) 07-26-2011, 05:16 AM

Ok here goes another of my rambling posts

First let's start with me, I shoot a little of everything - whatever caches my eye, but mostly nature, landscapes and still life.

My current main/walk-around lens in the canon efs 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM. Well it indeed gets the job done, 4-5.6 is pretty slow(I do some low-light stuff,) and it's not what you would call amazingly sharp. I have been thinking of getting the Tamron for a while.

Last month the 17-85 broke. And now I'm not sure what to do. Please bare with me through my long and convoluted thought process.

I know that wide open in the corners, the tamron is not at it's best. But most things shot wide open will ether be in the center right? And for landscapes I will stop down to like f/8 anyway. I have herd the VC shakes as it kicks in, how much of a problem really is that?

So I guess what I'm asking is has anyone used this lens, and for those who haven't, how much do the MTF charts really mean? Do you think this is a good lens or not?

Thanx

ravncat · #2 (**permalink**) 07-26-2011, 05:53 AM

Things shot wide open won't always be in the center, but they won't always be in the edges either. This is more so the case at night when often the corners are dark. Stopped down to 8, alot of lenses perform similarly. As for the VR - I have a tamron 28-300 - the VR does take a moment to kick in - as long as you don't jam the shutter down and let it stabilize you're ok. If you are in an action setting, and are using continual autofocus of some kind you can have the VR active so taking a shot suddenly isn't an issue.

VR can alter the optical properties of a lens - but it can also be turned off when you don't need it. (Say it's really bright, you're shooting fast shutterspeeds or you are on a tripod) I really wouldn't worry so much about the VR effects - and for the most part, just learn to use it when it is of benefit and leave it off elsewise. (It will eat up battery power a bit if you always have it on, sometimes that's important too)

I haven't used this lens, a friend of mine has it for the canon mount though, he likes it. Just about any modern lens is capable of giving really good results. We end up paying large amounts for very small jumps in image quality.

I assume that it's a good performer and likely, stopped down to f4 or 5.6 it will likely be similar or better than the slower lens you had. I don't doubt the canon 17-55 2.8 (or whatever it is) would be better - but it's likely a "small" difference in practice.

MTF curves are good for comparing maximum "potential" sharpness of different lenses you can get a good idea of how high up the bar could go in a theoretical space, but many other factors come into play when dealing with sharpness in the real world - from the bayer interpolation and anti-aliasing filter, to focus accuracy. Real world differences are often much smaller - and it takes skill to really bring out the most a lens can do.

MTF curves don't give you a good idea of the other important qualities of a lens - vignetting, curvature of field, color rendition, overall contrast, flaring, bokeh, abberations, distortions etc.

dlambert · #3 (**permalink**) 07-26-2011, 11:51 AM

I'm in the same boat. I've never used this lens, but I've got a friend who loves it. FWIW, I'd also give a look to Canon's new(ish) 15-85. It's not as fast optically as the Tamron lens, but I've seen some pretty favorable reviews for it.

scootermcq · #4 (**permalink**) 07-26-2011, 04:13 PM

I'm happy enough with it in a Nikon mount.

Here it is wide open:

100% Crop:

Portrait:

ishootRAW · #5 (**permalink**) 07-27-2011, 05:11 AM

Hey Scott,do you have the screw-drive, or the built in motor, if the BIM, how fast is the autofocus? Mind you, my 17-85 was USM, and blindingly quick. Well I don't do a lot of fast paced stuff, it was still nice to press the "fun button" and have the lens instantly focus. How much of a problem in real life do you think it will be?

And yes, tomorrow I'm going to the local store to try it out.

Also, I'm a student, and $700 is not something I want to have buyers regret on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlambert

I'd also give a look to Canon's new(ish) 15-85. It's not as fast optically as the Tamron lens, but I've seen some pretty favorable reviews for it.

Im planing to get a 10-24 this winter, and IMO it's not worth $800 for F/3.5-5.6

ishootRAW · #6 (**permalink**) 07-27-2011, 04:01 PM

Huey Scott. In your signature, it says 17-50. Is that the tamron? Or Nikor.

scootermcq · #7 (**permalink**) 07-27-2011, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ishootRAW

Huey Scott. In your signature, it says 17-50. Is that the tamron? Or Nikor.

Thats the Tamron. Auto focus is a little slower, than the Nikon, but I don't do sports or auto racing etc.... for me doing weddings, portraits and some landscape its fine.

ishootRAW · #8 (**permalink**) 07-27-2011, 04:38 PM

How about the AF accuracy, especially in low light.?

scootermcq · #9 (**permalink**) 07-27-2011, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ishootRAW

How about the AF accuracy, especially in low light.?

Lacks on it's own.... probably misses about 25% of the time. With AF assist... probably half that. With the AF assist grid from the speedlight, almost never.