Tamron 17-55 f2.8 - Normal?

Barks · 27 Dec 2011 at 20:56

On the whole this lens is fantastic but at f2.8 it has a habit of taking photos completely out of focus. For example on Christmas day I took a picture of everyone at the dinner table, the far subjects are completely out of focus and it randomly decides to focus on someone sitting in the middle of the table. I appreciate less of the photo would be in focus at f2.8 but surely it shouldn't be this bad?

Here's an example of the sort of pictures I end up with on AF.

f2.8 ISO 640 50mm 1/60

Nothing in the photo is in focus whatsoever.

theheyes · 27 Dec 2011 at 21:29

Don't forget you've got an equivalent focal length of 80mm on that photo and a shutter speed of 1/60 which is slower than the rule of thumb for hand holding.

What camera body have you got?

Barks · 27 Dec 2011 at 21:39

550D

I did wonder if it was the shutter speed that might be causing this effect. All the photos taken with flash were F4.0 at 1/60 and they are in pin sharp in focus.

An Exception · 27 Dec 2011 at 22:32

^^^
Yes 1/60 can be subject to camera shake. As the flash shot's are sharp I would say increase your shutter speed to 1/100 or something.
Also note that as you increase ISO (especially with crop sensors) that images become less sharp due to internal noise reduction performed by the camera (even if you set NR to off, some is still carried out whether you like it or not).

Neil79 · 27 Dec 2011 at 22:49

I hate tamrons!

Rojin · 27 Dec 2011 at 22:51

What AF selection points are you using? Mine only missed with fast movings subjects or in low light, both of which can be expected of any lens at times.

ARD · 27 Dec 2011 at 23:55

As Rojin asks - check your AF points, there are things in focus on the photo so it is working, but not focusing on the subject you wanted. As it wasn't a staged/set up shot, rather just capturing the moment then you can afford to sacrifice a bit of noise. Try raising ISO, which will then allow for a faster shutter and higher aperture. Might be worth experimenting in similar lighting conditions. For table shots 2.8 is too shallow DOF, use the flash and get the best image of the moment.

Guitarman0 · 28 Dec 2011 at 00:03

"What can you say? The auto-focus on the Tamron lens is terrible! It is slow, it searches, it hunts, it creeps, it’s noisy. I have tested and tried several Tamron lenses (from their 70-200 f2.8 to their 10-24mm lens) and the problem is the same. If, like me, you mostly use manual focus and a tripod, then the Tamron is easily the best buy of the group (especially the non VC version of the lens) and optical performance is really fine. But if you want a sports, travel, portrait lens where you can rely on auto-focus, then I would pass on the Tamron. Also note I did not test the vibration compensation (VC version) of this lens, other reports on the web suggest that sharpness of the VC version is lower than the non VC version. Test before buying!"

Source: http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/...s-canon-17-55mm-f2-8-and-tamron-17-50mm-f2-8/

Rojin · 28 Dec 2011 at 09:45

I wouldn't call it terrible at all. It is noisy but it's not slow, the canon 17-55 f2.8 is faster but it's not by a lot. I've had both. It can hunt in low light but so does the 35L I've been using the last few days. The 100mm macro I have is completely awful in low light, but you learn the limitations of a lens. The sigma 17-50 OS is supposed to be pretty good now, but I've not used one of those. When using f2.8 or wider apertures I found my keeper rate improved dramatically when using more capable camera bodies. I rarely shoot anything that is stationery so improved AF performance is something I've always looked for.

An Exception · 28 Dec 2011 at 13:14

Guitarman0 said:
"What can you say? The auto-focus on the Tamron lens is terrible! It is slow, it searches, it hunts, it creeps, it’s noisy. I have tested and tried several Tamron lenses (from their 70-200 f2.8 to their 10-24mm lens) and the problem is the same. If, like me, you mostly use manual focus and a tripod, then the Tamron is easily the best buy of the group (especially the non VC version of the lens) and optical performance is really fine. But if you want a sports, travel, portrait lens where you can rely on auto-focus, then I would pass on the Tamron. Also note I did not test the vibration compensation (VC version) of this lens, other reports on the web suggest that sharpness of the VC version is lower than the non VC version. Test before buying!"

Source: http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/...s-canon-17-55mm-f2-8-and-tamron-17-50mm-f2-8/

Is that your review or just one you found, as I remember reading it a while ago and thinking... huh?

That lens must have something wrong with it, I had a Nikon 50 1.8G that showed similar focus problems.
My Tamron 17-50 Non VC was very good on my 550D, AF was extremely accurate, pretty fast, bloody noisy, but it always delivered the goods in terms of sharpness and AF accuracy. I needed it to because I don't manual focus.

Below is 100% Crop at 2.8 taken in the DARK and SOOC (no sharpening).
No AF assist was used, I could hardly see anything through the viewfinder, but the lens didn't hunt, it just moved really slowly until it got a lock, I was amazed it did tbh.

theheyes · 28 Dec 2011 at 16:23

My Tamron 17-50 was fine also. In fact, when I traded it in, the guy who was testing it actually remarked on how fast it focused.

Guitarman0 · 29 Dec 2011 at 01:28

An Exception said:
Is that your review or just one you found, as I remember reading it a while ago and thinking... huh?

That lens must have something wrong with it, I had a Nikon 50 1.8G that showed similar focus problems.
My Tamron 17-50 Non VC was very good on my 550D, AF was extremely accurate, pretty fast, bloody noisy, but it always delivered the goods in terms of sharpness and AF accuracy. I needed it to because I don't manual focus.

Below is 100% Crop at 2.8 taken in the DARK.
No AF assist was used, I could hardly see anything through the viewfinder, but the lens didn't hunt, it just moved really slowly until it got a lock, I was amazed it did tbh.

Not my review, just one I found. Glad to hear that it seems his was a one off as I have been looking at this lens also!

Neil79 · 29 Dec 2011 at 10:45

My tamron non vc was a load of rubbish, blurred corners bad focusing and completely out of focus at 2.8. My canon kit lens blew it away for quality, took 3 months to get a refund and thus i'm never going back to Tamron

An Exception · 29 Dec 2011 at 12:46

^^^
Yup, it was Tamron's fault you purchased from an un-reputable HK retailer on the cheap.

I see your point though, I purchased 2 Canon 85mm's, one front focused and the other back focused but worse the focus wasn't even consistently off. I also purchased a 50D, AF was all over the place and my 550D blew it away, took me 14 days to get a refund and thus i'm never going back to Canon...

Neil79 · 29 Dec 2011 at 13:01

An Exception said:
^^^
Yup, it was Tamron's fault you purchased from an un-reputable HK retailer on the cheap.

I see your point though, I purchased 2 Canon 85mm's, one front focused and the other back focused but worse the focus wasn't even consistently off. I also purchased a 50D, AF was all over the place and my 550D blew it away, took me 14 days to get a refund and thus i'm never going back to Canon...

It was tamrons fault the lens was crap it was the un-reputable HK retailing fault for being crap with refunds. Now if you've used that extended knoweldge of yours you'd see that the tamron both non vc and vc has a number of reported issues just searching through google. Yes I understand about your canon but at the end of the day if you have a bad experience with a certain lens or canon you're unlikely to go back to that model

There are just too many reported issues with that tamron that I should've searched previous to even buying it!

An Exception · 29 Dec 2011 at 14:07

^^^
You purchased a lemon, it happens. Yes maybe Tamron doesn't have the best quality control but that is where the issue ends The problem with your lens isn't inherent to the design of the lens like the number of issues that plagued sigma for instance.
There is nothing stopping you from walking into a shop, testing the lens, and once satisfied, purchasing the lens. Or visit a reputable UK site, purchase the lens, receive and test the lens, if not satisfied replace the lens (some good retailers will even pay the return shipping).

If I had not given my 50 1.8G a second chance, I would have missed out on what is arguably the best performing 50mm lens that is available on the Nikon system.

The Tamron 17-50 is the best performing lens at it's price-point, you have to spend allot more to actually get a lens that beats it by only a fairly small margin. If you wasn't willing to test a second copy then you may have missed out, especially if your still using that stinky kit lens.

ARD · 29 Dec 2011 at 22:25

Bad copies of lenses are common place now, with Canon being one of the biggest culprits. It took me 3 copies to get a good version of my 300 f4L. Tamron make some fine lenses, but with everything, you have to find the sweet spot.

ARD · 29 Dec 2011 at 22:26

An Exception said:
Is that your review or just one you found, as I remember reading it a while ago and thinking... huh?

That lens must have something wrong with it, I had a Nikon 50 1.8G that showed similar focus problems.
My Tamron 17-50 Non VC was very good on my 550D, AF was extremely accurate, pretty fast, bloody noisy, but it always delivered the goods in terms of sharpness and AF accuracy. I needed it to because I don't manual focus.

Below is 100% Crop at 2.8 taken in the DARK and SOOC (no sharpening).
No AF assist was used, I could hardly see anything through the viewfinder, but the lens didn't hunt, it just moved really slowly until it got a lock, I was amazed it did tbh.

Nice capture, catch light in the eye is spot on - sorry to hijack the thread