New lens looks soft. Help!

[Vidgamer]

Wide open aperture at 17mm might be a worst-case test. I'll gladly accept that given the amazing performance overall. The lens is great, and it is affordable. You can find better, but you'll pay a lot more. And not necessarily all aspects will still be better. (For example, you may lose the f2.8 with the CZ16-80.) Even at f2.8 it's still pretty sharp, if imperfect. When I look back through photos and really like something, chances are, it was taken with this lens. I now rarely use the 50/1.7. And field curvature is not a problem, unless your subject is flat and you're close and you're wide open -- so maybe this isn't the best lens for photographing paintings at a museum.

[KevinBarrett]

Like I said, I liked it, but my copy seemed (and was) a little off. It wasn't my first choice when I ordered it, but if my budget hadn't changed between ordering the lens and recieving it I'd be sending it back for another.

[KevinBarrett]

This probably isn't a very good test, but it was a casual exposure just to get the series of high-contrast elements. The light was falling fast as this was near sunset.

[David Kilpatrick]

To be honest that looks pretty good to me for wide open. I would not be rejecting that lens on the basis of either focusing or CA/quality problems, at least when used at 50mm as shown.

[KevinBarrett]

You know, I started looking around at some more 100% crops from this and other lenses and I have to agree with you. I'm liking this lens more and more, but I'd still like to try another sample because of the front element. I've already arranged a return at B&H Photo but I think I'll try to make it an exchange. Also, I lost the nerve about upgrading to the 16-80 instead. The local shop only has a couple and they don't want me to open and try them out before buying. Plus I don't know if I'd even be a good judge of a good/bad copy of that lens. I don't like to gamble, so it's strange that I'd order a lens by mail at all, right?

[KevinBarrett]

Here are some pics I shot at a wedding this weekend with the Tamron 17-50/2.8

There is a little bit of light fall off in the corners at 17mm, but this isn't very consistent. I've found samples at large and small apertures where it is present and not present. I'm not sure what could be causing it, but it isn't anything like a 16-80 or 16-105's vignetting. I've been able to put details into the corners at any f-stop without a care, and I've been loving it!

28mm, f/2.8, 1/125 sec., ISO 200

17mm, f/2.8, 1/200 sec., ISO 200

17mm, f/6.3, 1/60 sec., ISO 800

[bfitzgerald]

Those shots look just fine to me. You will never get tack sharp shooting at WA with a lens wide open, really depends on the subject. But I would be happy with that.