Camera Labs

I have to look on the 2.8 zoom lens firstly my main choice is the Sigma 24 70 f/2.8 HSM ( The new one ) but if the price way too expensive. My second option would be the Tamron 17 50 f/2.8.

Here is my questions, Does this lens when auto focussing is very noisy or silent. Is it reliable that taken good picture at low light & lastly since it is 2.8 does it have creamy looking Bokeh for the Portrait shot.

Thanks in advanced for helping me out.

_________________
Soon.....

Here's a review that I would trust.
It's not the version with built in AF-motor (it's not really a HSM version) but one can assume, that the optical quality is identical.

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses

Hi Adi, I have this lens for a while and I don't like it.

Here is my impression of the lens

I like Canon EF 28-135mm IS better for low light.

Maybe the Sigma one is better (I know they have good built, quiet & fast focus)
I own 2 Sigma EX lenses and satisfied with it mechanically and optically.

_________________
RadiantLite - Cameras and Lenses Comparison Reviews, buying guide, photo taking techniques and other tips
My Portfolio - Some photos from my work

Tamron 17 50 f/2.8 is a popular choice but been spoilt by the the optical quality. Sorry to hear that Enche Zein, you have a bad copy of your previous Tamron 17 50.

I think better to get the Sigma 24 70 HSM although it is pricy but I don't think I will get the Canon EF 17 55 f/2.8 IS USM it too expensive & out of my budget range sure it is a breath taking lens. Is that true this lens is a hidden L ?

_________________
Soon.....

it is not only hidden L, it surpassed the quality some L lenses plus IS for standard zoom that even 24-70mm L does not provide.

Why it is not labelled L in my opinion is because of the build quality (exterior case) and also it is EF-S lens which can't be use in full frame camera. None of EF-S lenses currently are labeled L.

Check out this thread:
http://www.cameralabs.com/forum/viewtop ... highlight=

exactly what i got. It is far from sharp in my opinion.

It might be Auto Focus failure too, Tamron has been reputable on having clumsy AF that hunt for target most of the time.

_________________
RadiantLite - Cameras and Lenses Comparison Reviews, buying guide, photo taking techniques and other tips
My Portfolio - Some photos from my work

I got the Tamron 17-50 the other day. Have been playing with it over the weekend quite a bit.

While I initially got this lens to do concert photography, I seriously don't think that the autofocus would be up to it for me. It's just not fast enough and hunts quite a bit (unlike my 50mm 1.8 which has pretty impressive autofocus on moving subjects in relatively low light).

I am actually impressed with this lens though. Nice and sharp. The autofocus is a little noisy but that doesn't really phase me. You can get nice and close to subjects too which actually surprised me. Granted that this image was cropped a bit...

Shot at 50mm f/2.8

_________________
Nikon D90, 18-200VR, 70-300VR, 50mm f1.8, SB600, Kenko Tubes, MB-D80

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bradchiplin/

Hi Thanks for the image sample. It may look sharp but I think I should invest a flashgun first. But I'm still in research to look on the standard zoom lens ( I want to upgrade from kit lens ).

_________________
Soon.....