I just received my Tamron 17/3.5 (type II) & shot a few quick test pics.
Too soon to say how I feel about the overall resolution, color, etc, but I can say a few things:
1: The sharpness is quite even in the corners, even wide open.
2: Wide open is, however, not exactly razor sharp. More like the Zuiko 18mm.
3: At f/11, it looks pretty good, though not Zeiss-good.
5: The overall distortion is quite low. Less, for instance, than my Zuiko 24/2.8.
6: The distortion is waveform, not just barrel. My guess is that it is equal to, or slightly less than, the Zeiss 21mm.
7: The colors are reserved. I'm amazed at the color in Cogitech's original pics. Mine just won't do that. PAUL, is that straight from raw-conversion, or did you saturate in post?
I have to work for the rest of the weekend, but will post some example pics as soon as I can.
----------------
BTW - I also received my Tammy 80-200 f/2.8 today, and HOLY MOLEY is this a nice lens!
Pics to come soon, I promise.
I actually had the same experience with blue skies as Paul - there is some polarisation-like saturation happening that I cant explain but it is very clear when compared against other similar lenses (oly 21/3.5 and Nikon 20/3.5).
Certainly welcome considering the difficulty of using a polariser!
Oh and congrats on the Tam 80-200/2.8, I owned one for a couple of days (returned due to fungus) and it was outstanding at everything except flare resistance - which is terrible compared to modern offerings...
I cant say I was a fan of the handling on it either, but boy it was sharp!
Maybe it was unrealistic to think that it would be in the same class as a ZE 21mm. However the copy I received does not compare favorably to the $119 Canon 18-55mm IS when both lenses are used on a 7D body.
I am sending it back, assuming it is defective.
My question for those of you who are impressed with this lens, what are you comparing it to?
I wasn't impressed with the Oly 18mm when I owned one. So if all the hoopla about the SP 17mm is that this looks about as good as an Oly 18mm at a much lower price, then I guess I won't bother to try out a second copy of the 17mm SP.
Just a custom (Provia) tone curve, but as Empire says the "polarization effect" is very real with this lens.
Ah, that explains it.
You probably should have mentioned this in your OP. - but regardless, I'm glad you "talked me into" this lens. So far, considering the cost, I am very pleased. This may raise an interesting point, AKA lenses like this & Zeiss, with more neutral or "reserved" colors. Perhaps they are better suited for post "film look" processing, as they "go over the top" less quickly.
I'm still working (client is making coffee so I'm sneaking a quick FM break) but will try some "worst case glare" polarization tests on Monday.
billsnature wrote:
I wasn't impressed with the Oly 18mm when I owned one. So if all the hoopla about the SP 17mm is that this looks about as good as an Oly 18mm at a much lower price, then I guess I won't bother to try out a second copy of the 17mm SP.
I don't think anyone ever claimed this lens is a Zeiss killer! If you have $1800 to spare, that lens is certainly the way to go. (or the Canon 17 Tse or the Nikon 14-24, if you can afford the adapter, Lee holder, & a set of 150mm filters)
I'm hoping this lens will be good enough that I can use it for a while, to figure out if I really need / like a 17mm at all. So far, the lens looks really promising.
So can you tell from this pick if this is a fixed or floating rear-element?
(I have no clue what each looks like)
I'm wondering because if floating, a lot of "bad lenses out there might simply have the wrong registration distance.
I wonder about mine as well. It looks good, but could it be better? Considering that I took Paul's advice (re the DOF tab) and am using an OM mount plus an EOS adapter, there is some room for error.
I won't go further off the beaten path with details, but I shot one of those little laser pointers in my eye once, and man, it physically hurt. There was a spot for hours. Mebbe a small penlight is better than a laser.
cogitech wrote:
Simply direct the beam through the lens at close proximity. The lazer (or flashlight) will create a very obvious glow on dusty, hazy or cloudy glass surfaces. Angle the beam around and it is easy to see patterns, etc. in the glow (if the haze is caused by fungus, for example). Shine the light or laser from both the front and the back of the lens, to search different angles/aspects for dust or haze.
Note: Obviously, always look at the lens from an angle when doing this. Do not position it such that the laser goes directly through the lens into your eye ...Show more →
I am about to invest in the Lee filter holder system, Lee wide hood, and some very expensive filters.
I would naturally like to use the ND's and GND's with this lens.
I guess I could hand-hold the GND, but I'd like to find a way to get the Lee system on this lens.
I thought the type-2 had a screw-on lens, as some website says this, but it does not.
What to do?
---------------------
One option would be to simply epoxy a Lee adapter to the front. The lens isn't all that valuable, but still this bothers me.
Luckily my lens came with TWO factory hoods, so another option would be to cut-away the front of one hood, so I can screw a Lee wide-angle adapter onto IT. This seems more logical, except:
1: The two screws that hold the hood to the lens are not very secure. I'd hate to see an entire Lee system crash to the ground.
2: Someone would probably be very happy if I sold them an original factory hood. It seems a shame to destroy one.
I am about to invest in the Lee filter holder system, Lee wide hood, and some very expensive filters.
I would naturally like to use the ND's and GND's with this lens.
I guess I could hand-hold the GND, but I'd like to find a way to get the Lee system on this lens.
I thought the type-2 had a screw-on lens, as some website says this, but it does not.
What to do?
---------------------
One option would be to simply epoxy a Lee adapter to the front. The lens isn't all that valuable, but still this bothers me.
Luckily my lens came with TWO factory hoods, so another option would be to cut-away the front of one hood, so I can screw a Lee wide-angle adapter onto IT. This seems more logical, except:
1: The two screws that hold the hood to the lens are not very secure. I'd hate to see an entire Lee system crash to the ground.
2: Someone would probably be very happy if I sold them an original factory hood. It seems a shame to destroy one.
Sorry I can't help make that decision. The only filter I've ever used with mine is an 82mm Grad ND that screws right into the hood threads. I never use standard ND and this lens doesn't really need a polarizer, so....
Mar 23, 2010 at 08:34 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I am about to invest in the Lee filter holder system, Lee wide hood, and some very expensive filters.
I would naturally like to use the ND's and GND's with this lens.
I guess I could hand-hold the GND, but I'd like to find a way to get the Lee system on this lens.
I thought the type-2 had a screw-on lens, as some website says this, but it does not.
What to do?
---------------------
One option would be to simply epoxy a Lee adapter to the front. The lens isn't all that valuable, but still this bothers me.
Luckily my lens came with TWO factory hoods, so another option would be to cut-away the front of one hood, so I can screw a Lee wide-angle adapter onto IT. This seems more logical, except:
1: The two screws that hold the hood to the lens are not very secure. I'd hate to see an entire Lee system crash to the ground.
2: Someone would probably be very happy if I sold them an original factory hood. It seems a shame to destroy one.
I think the screws work reasonably well. I wouldn't worry about it holding a Lee system, and although I am sure people would like the hood they aren't that hard to find or that valuable. If it were me I would try the hood adaption with your extra hood. If it doesn't work you are only out the extra hood, but YMMV.
I am about to invest in the Lee filter holder system, Lee wide hood, and some very expensive filters.
I would naturally like to use the ND's and GND's with this lens.
I guess I could hand-hold the GND, but I'd like to find a way to get the Lee system on this lens.
I thought the type-2 had a screw-on lens, as some website says this, but it does not.
What to do?
---------------------
One option would be to simply epoxy a Lee adapter to the front. The lens isn't all that valuable, but still this bothers me.
Luckily my lens came with TWO factory hoods, so another option would be to cut-away the front of one hood, so I can screw a Lee wide-angle adapter onto IT. This seems more logical, except:
1: The two screws that hold the hood to the lens are not very secure. I'd hate to see an entire Lee system crash to the ground.
2: Someone would probably be very happy if I sold them an original factory hood. It seems a shame to destroy one.
I can tell you what I did...I removed the glass from a 67mm skylight filter and epoxied it onto the front of the lens:
As you can see its very neat and wont devalue the lens.
This left me free to use my generic 67mm rubber hood (the same one I used on my Tokina 17mm f3.5 RMC) and of course comparatively cheap and easy to come by 67mm filters:
All you need to fit a Lee system (I use Cokin P, BTW) is a 67mm Lee adapter ring and your in business.
I'm not sure that it won't devalue the lens, though! (well, maybe it will make it worth more?)
Can the stock hood still be used? - i.e. will it fit over the filter ring?
Also, I take it that with your P-holder, fully loaded, there is no vignetting? (This is throwing the holder further forward, after all.)
