I bought a tamron lens should it be sharp

magicpic

I have a 20d and bought the tamron lens 17-50 2.8 and it is not sharp. the photos are soft. I got the lens from B & H...I would like to hear from someone that has this lens..Is there something wrong with the lens? hope to hear janis

Scott_Quier

A couple of examples with EXIF data would help a lot in answering this question. But, in general, if technique is on then the photos should be reasonably sharp wide-open and even better as the aperture closes down - to a point.

So, give us some example shots!!

JimM

I like this link to comare lenses. Since I have some I really like, I use this to better understand how others will compare to them...

http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylenstxt.jsp?filter="brand='Canon EF' OR brand='Sigma AF' OR brand='Tamron AF' or brand='Tokina AF' or brand='Vivitar AF'"


In case the other link is too huge:
Lens Comparison

magicpic

JimM wrote:

I like this link to comare lenses. Since I have some I really like, I use this to better understand how others will compare to them...

http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylenstxt.jsp?filter="brand='Canon EF' OR brand='Sigma AF' OR brand='Tamron AF' or brand='Tokina AF' or brand='Vivitar AF'"


In case the other link is too huge:
Lens Comparison

taken with a 20d

ziggy53

Janis,

At that size, they look fine.

We really, really need to see original images. Do you have any images at full size and resolution, preferably with no post-processing?

Tee Why

Although small, the images look pretty sharp to me.
A section of a 100% crop may yield more information along with the shooting settings.

magicpic

ziggy53 wrote:

Janis,

At that size, they look fine.

We really, really need to see original images. Do you have any images at full size and resolution, preferably with no post-processing?

here are the photos from the tamron

z_28

Original, rather means full size, unprocessed !

Anyway I don't see anything immediately wrong with posted pics.

magicpic

z_28 wrote:

Original, rather means full size, unprocessed !

Anyway I don't see anything immediately wrong with posted pics.[/quot


these are the orginal files..if they are not how do i get the orgianal files..thanks janis

z_28

Are you really use 0.25 MP camera ?

Your originals are 600x400 only.

ziggy53

Janis,

What resolution is the camera set at?
Are you shooting RAW?
How are you posting the images to your gallery?
Did you use a tripod?
What was the lighting setup for this shoot?

PineapplePhoto

no comments...

z_28 wrote:

Are you really use 0.25 MP camera ?

Your originals are 600x400 only.

OsirisPhoto

My word, those girls are a bit old for Santa's knee aren't they??

Oh, maybe one useful comment then... as well as the advice already given, try a direct comparison at home with a known 'good' lens, using a set scene, tripod, same camera / lens settings and constant lighting. That's what I do when I get a new lens... not as scientific as some lens reviewers.. but they aren't testing your copy.

magicpic

Hyperbaric wrote:

My word, those girls are a bit old for Santa's knee aren't they??

Oh, maybe one useful comment then... as well as the advice already given, try a direct comparison at home with a known 'good' lens, using a set scene, tripod, same camera / lens settings and constant lighting. That's what I do when I get a new lens... not as scientific as some lens reviewers.. but they aren't testing your copy. [/quote

I am going to do the test this weekend..thanks janis