Anyone using Tamron Lenses?17-50 or 28-75 How is the Bokeh?

[glen]

If I care at all about Bokeh, should I just get a prime lense instead?

 

[blastingcap]

Tamron 17-50 does okay for bokeh. I have no experience with the Tamron 28-75 though. Prime doesn't automatically mean good bokeh; nor does large aperture. What mount do you use? Nikon F? Canon, Sony, etc.? You may have better alternatives in your native mount.

 

[Aharami]

i have the 17-50 f/2.8. very versatile with pleasing bokeh but nothing close to my sigma 50 1.4 or canon 85 1.8

as for images, look here
http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/...one&aperture_min=none&aperture_max=none&res=3

here is a pic i took with the tamron at 50mm wide open

 

[glen]

Tamron 17-50 does okay for bokeh. I have no experience with the Tamron 28-75 though. Prime doesn't automatically mean good bokeh; nor does large aperture. What mount do you use? Nikon F? Canon, Sony, etc.? You may have better alternatives in your native mount.

Thinking about getting a Canon SL1.

Canon has some great lenses, but they are pretty expensive.

 

[glen]

Canon 50mm f1.2 would be nice, I think, and I hope versatile. But, I don't know from experience because I have never had an SLR, so I don't have a good sense of how versatile it will be or how much I can change the shot by moving my position.

 

[gevorg]

Tamrons can produce decent bokeh, but usually nothing amazing. Some variants have "onion" bokeh. Here is 17-50 on a crop camera:

Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD VC

We had a brief look at the quality of the bokeh (out-of-focus blur) at 50mm. The blur is generally very smooth both in the fore- and background. Bright out-of-focus highlights can produce an outlining effect at f/2.8 although the effect improves at f/4.

 

[glen]

But, if I am using a crop sensor, would I be better off with a 35mm? 40mm? Is one of the Canon mount primes by anyone, Sigma, Tamron, etc... a particularly sweet lense?

 

[blastingcap]

Tamrons can produce decent bokeh, but usually nothing amazing. Some variants have "onion" bokeh. Here is 17-50 on a crop camera:

Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD VC

non-vc > vc on this particular model for acuity, not sure re: bokeh

 

[AkumaX]

But, if I am using a crop sensor, would I be better off with a 35mm? 40mm? Is one of the Canon mount primes by anyone, Sigma, Tamron, etc... a particularly sweet lense?

If you're on a crop sensor, you could get the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for around $300-$350 (crop sensor only lens)

Other 'cheap' lenses you could consider: Canon 35mm f/2 for ~$250, Canon 50mm f/1.8 for around ~$100, Canon 50mm f/1.4 for around ~$325

If you wanted to have some fun and not worry too much about boken, you could pick up the Canon 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake for around $120

If $$$ is no object, you can get the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 for around $800 or Canon 35mm f/1.4L (both full frame lens as well)

It really just depends what you like to shoot though...

 

[arrfep]

But, if I am using a crop sensor, would I be better off with a 35mm? 40mm? Is one of the Canon mount primes by anyone, Sigma, Tamron, etc... a particularly sweet lense?

Really depends what your shooting style is.

>35mm on a crop sensor gets to be a pretty limiting field of view, IMO. But that's because I prefer 35mm on full frame. Some prefer 24mm, some prefer 50mm.

I'm shot with the 35L on full frame for 4 or 5 years now, and probably 70% of all my photos use that focal length.

Whatever body you buy, I suggest spending a month or so just shooting with the kit lens. Then go back and look at your photos and see what your most common focal length used was, and what you enjoyed shooting most at. Then buy a prime in that range.