Lens lesson learned

I bought the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di II lens on Friday and while it isn't L glass (what is?) it is the first non-consumer lens in my bag.

All of the things you would hope were there, sharp, fast, fast focus, good color, etc.. What I didn't expect is how bright it is. I knew the wider apeture would pass more light but the viewfinder seems brighter then it is with my 50mm 1.8! The higher quality optics seem to allow more light to pass then my other lenses. I didn't expect that!

Just to be sure I did a test. I set my tripod up in the house and got my Canon 28-90 f4-5.6 out. I set the camera to apeture priority and set it at 5.6. I set both lenses to 35mm and half pressed the shutter button. With the Tamron the shutter speed was 1/125 and the Canon was 1/100.

I've had L glass on my wish list and have been near to buying on several occassions but other priorities have changed that plan each time. I'll be saving much harder now!

I'll post a review of the Tamron when it is listed in the reviews section. It's not perfect but overall I am very pleased with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dmm96452

The higher quality optics seem to allow more light to pass then my other lenses... With the Tamron the shutter speed was 1/125 and the Canon was 1/100...

---

The faster the maximum aperture (larger f-stop), the brighter the VF will be. The 50 f1.8 is 1-1/3 stops faster than an f2.8 lens so it is brighter in the VF but maybe the change to this lens from your other zoom was such an improvement that it seems like the 50 isn't as bright.

Some lenses and cameras will give you different exposures even side by side like you had here. This is only 1/3 stop difference and I'd wonder if the light conditions changed just a little bit as you were changing lenses. Even if not, I don't think that 1/3 stop is anything I'd worry about. You could test in a more controlled situation like inside with no windows and using constant artificial lighting (basement, turn on some lights).

A friend has the 28-75 lens of that series and has been really happy with it. Just out of curiosity, why would you want an L lens after being so impressed with this lens? I know this lens is a fraction of the price of a top of the line equivalent which may be slightly better, but "bang for the buck" is pretty good here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by another view

The faster the maximum aperture (larger f-stop), the brighter the VF will be. The 50 f1.8 is 1-1/3 stops faster than an f2.8 lens so it is brighter in the VF but maybe the change to this lens from your other zoom was such an improvement that it seems like the 50 isn't as bright....

---

It really didn't look as bright.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by another view

... You could test in a more controlled situation like inside with no windows and using constant artificial lighting (basement, turn on some lights)...

---

That exactly where I was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by another view

...Just out of curiosity, why would you want an L lens after being so impressed with this lens? I know this lens is a fraction of the price of a top of the line equivalent which may be slightly better, but "bang for the buck" is pretty good here.

---

I wouldn't replace this lens. The original L fantasy was the 16-35 f2.8L, either the 24-105 f4L IS or the 24-70 f2.8L ( I still haven't decided) and the 70-200 f2.8L (undecided on IS for this one). That would cover a range from 16-200mm (where I most aften shoot) with very good glass.

Photography is just a hobby for me but for one of the few times in my life (with a little saving) I can afford the "good toys" so that is my goal. In the end common sense may win the day and I'll go with something like the Tamron 28-75 and the Sigma 70-200 or something similar.

The reason I bought the Tamron is that I have a need in the next few weeks that my current lenses couldn't fill and hadn't yet saved enough for the 16-35. I've also been trying to avoid the digital only lenses in case I someday uggrade to a FF D-SLR.

I guess if I get a ff body I'll have an excuse to save up for the 16-35 after all. :)

I've got the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di and it's awesome. It's the first non-Canon lens I've ever bought for my EOS system. Someone made me an offer I couldn't refuse. I have been more than happy with the performance and image quality. It's far, far better than my Canon 28-135 IS - aside from the shorter zoom range. The only reason I'd rather have a Canon L-series lens is for action photos where I'm using AI Servo auto focus. While I haven't really tested it's AF speed, I don't think there's any way it could perform as well as the Canon L lenses do. But for everything else, I don't think anything could be better.

I'll take a look at the lens reviews and see if that lens is missing, If it is, I'll see about getting it added. I do want you to be able to post your review.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dmm96452

I've also been trying to avoid the digital only lenses in case I someday uggrade to a FF D-SLR.

---

So why did you buy this lens? This lens is not compatible with FF DSLRs or 35mm SLRs.

http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/1750_diII_a016.asp

I shot a couple hundred shots over the weekend but haven't had a chance to sit down and analyse the quality of the shots. I'll perform the same Av test as you did for comparison.

I have a few things coming up in the next few weeks that I will need something (relatively) wide and fast for. I don't have the cash for the 16-35 yet and probably won't get it now unless I buy a FF body. Check the sentence right before the one you quoted. :p

I shot a few hundred shots with mine this weekend as well and the only issue I had was very noticable distortion at the wide end. I'll post an example this evening when I get home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photo-John

I've got the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di and it's awesome...

---

I just read some of the reviews and aside from some apparent QC issues it looks like a good lens. Of course it's only about 1/4 of the cost of the 24-70 or 24-105 so I will miss out on all of the anticipation of saving for it if I go that way. I'm not so sure about that. :D :p :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dmm96452

...I'll post an example this evening when I get home.

---

As promised.

I just read about this lens in the latest Outdoor Photographer. It looks like an impressive piece of glass, and it definitely got my attention. Glad to hear it's such a nice lens. May have to put that one on my wish list....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Speed

I just read about this lens in the latest Outdoor Photographer. It looks like an impressive piece of glass, and it definitely got my attention. Glad to hear it's such a nice lens. May have to put that one on my wish list....

---

Except for the distortion at the wide end (see the photo above) I love it. It's not that bad on most shots. I did have it at 17mm and the camera was angled up slightly which will make the distortion worse.