Photozone.de has finally published a lab review of the Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC. It’s for the Canon version, but that should not make much of a difference. The review sparked off a thread in the Nikon forum of Photo.net, where the review was regarded as almost devastating. The original poster concluded with “If you value your photography, stay away from this lens!”

Well, regarding distortions at 17mm, yes, it distorts badly, and apart from the brick wall, this original shot, provided for you in all glory of its full size, is as bad as it may get. For the Image of the Day I have applied PTLens, but that could only remove part of the barrel distortion. I’ve removed some more with Photoshop’s Lens Distortion filter, cropped, and you see that what I’ve got is pretty perfectly rectangular. Just frame a little less accurate, leave room for correction. That’s for distortions.

The other thing is, that down in the Photo.net thread Eric Arnold tried to compromise:

essentially,it comes down to this: if you need corner sharpness but constant aperture isnt important, i.e. for landscapes, get the 16-85 VR.

if you need a fast constant aperture and want stabilization at the expense of losing some corner sharpness, get the 17-50 VC.

I think my answer is relevant, and I don’t want it to be buried in an off-site thread, so please allow me to quote it as well:

I think this is wrong. The reason to get the 16-85 VR can only be the extended range.

Yes, it is sharper in the corners at f3.5 than the Tamron at f2.8, so what? Would you take landscape images at f2.8 or f3.5? Most of the time I wouldn’t. And even if:

I’ve just tried the Tamron at f3.5, tried it with book shelfs (detail!), tried it with flash (it’s still night here), and I can see a subtle sharpness falloff, only in the extreme corners, and I can only see it because I look for it. Even at f3.5, you would have a hard time seeing it, and for the 16-85 VR this is still wide open.

No, I suppose with the 16-85 you would shoot normally at at least f5.6, and by that the Tamron is stellar across the range. We’re speaking of 50/1.8 sharpness here. And that’s only at 17mm. Think of 24mm: the 16-85 just begins at f4, from 35mm at f4.5, and by 50mm it is at f5. At none of these focal lengths and at starting aperture it is a match for the Tamron.

Now take it the other way: Imagine a situation where you do want to take a scenic image at f2.8, for instance because it is night. Let it be architecture, for instance in a city, or let it be within a cathedral. It’s quite a typical situation, and it’s quite typical for situations where you either have no tripod or may not be allowed to use it.

In such situations the shot is frequently repeatable, thus I may go down from my normal 1/15s (auto ISO lower speed limit) to 1/8s or even 1/4s. With VR I have a sharp image, it may take me two or three attempts though, especially standing without support and shooting portrait format. Even in low light I may get away with ISO 200.

With the 17-55/2.8 at twice the price I may be lucky to get the shot at 1/15s, but I suppose 1/30s will be more likely, especially in portrait format. We’re talking two to three stops, i.e. ISO 800-1600 here. Do you believe that the added corner sharpness of the 17-55/2.8 will still be there at these ISOs? And if were not talking extreme corners but center or off-center, for instance a typical “rule of thirds” composition? The Tamron will be much better than in the extreme corners. The Nikon may or may not still have a slight edge on the charts, but you would have a hard time seeing it, and, remember, that would be at the same ISO. But what with our fictual but not so unrealistic situation in the church or at night in the city? With an advantage of ISO 200 vs ISO 800-1600 across the frame and the main subject where main subjects typically are, don’t you believe that any theoretical sharpness advantage of the Nikon, even if it were there at that point in the frame, would be hopelessly buried in noise?

Now say you accept some added noise because you need depth of field. You go to f5.6. That’s two stops, we are at ISO 800 with the Tamron. We may need two or three attempts to hold the shot at 1/4s, but we would need the same with the Nikon at 1/15s or even 1/30s. Both lenses operate at maximum sharpness now. Under ideal light and in the lab, you may still be able to measure a slight sharpness advantage in the extreme corners for the Nikon. Our subject is not in the extreme corners though, and the light is low as it is. Where is the Nikon now? ISO 3200-6400, right? Forget about any theoretical advantage it may have. At that light it is severely hampered by sensor noise. ISO 800 vs ISO 3200-6400? This is an almost too easy win for the Tamron.

I may sound like being biased, I may even sound like being affiliated with Tamron, but that’s not the case. I just own this lens and have used it for three months in the darkest time of the year. Really, I wouldn’t so easily dismiss this lens

Here we are. The Image of the Day was taken at 1/15s and f2.8. The extreme corners of the original shot are about 10cm in front of the focal plane. They are mushy because they are clearly out of focus. If they were in focus, they might be still mushy but less mushy. That’s how bad it can get. Could be worse, huh?

And, given the example in the quote, had I taken my time, I could have gone down to 1/4s and ISO 200. With non-stabilized lenses you’d still hover at ISO 800 or maybe at ISO 1600, look at the noise and console yourself with the fact that it’s not the lens, it’s only the light that’s so bad

Oh yes, “Rahmen” means “frame” or “frames” in German. Thus the Song of the Day is “Framed” from The Sensational Alex Harvey Band’s 1972 album “Framed”. See them in a fine live performance on YouTube.

For a change, this is another part of my review of the new Tamron SP AF 17-50mm 2.8 XR Di II VC LD Asp IF.

Basically it’s no big news, it’s just a warning. You know, every now and then someone asks at the photography forums if it is necessary to turn lens stabilization off when working from the tripod. I mostly see this asked on Photo.net’s Nikon forum, but that’s just what I read. I am sure it is the sama at Canon forums.

Normally there are no clear answers: some people say it makes no difference, some claim to see it, some tell us that it depends on the lens, and so on a so forth. Well, nobody has asked me about this lens, but as I stumbled upon it today, here’s the answer: If working from the tripod with Tamron’s stabilized 17-50/2.8, for heaven’s sake turn stabilization off, at least when you work on the long end.

The second image is a JPEG straight from the camera. See the shake? It’s extreme. Because of the gloomy light at 4:10pm I used a tripod. I was in a hurry and because of the snow I didn’t review the images when I was there. I simply assumed that they would be good enough. Why not, when shooting ISO 200 from a tripod? Well, here it is, the image could not have been worse hand held.

The Song of the Day is “Shake Away” from Lila Downs’ equally titled 2008 album. Hear it on YouTube. Great song, great album

I always say, follow your impulses. Today I had the impulse to make images from a very low perspective. You know the drill: do what you normally don’t do and see what happens. It’s one of those exercises that are often done to stimulate creativity, and it’s one of the things that are really fun to do. I should really show at least two more images, but it’s late and they definitely need processing. Maybe another day, maybe next Sunday

Talking about creativity, one of the most frequently given advices is to use one lens on one camera for an extended period of time. Mike Johnston most radically recommended it, Paul Lester does it, and now Ken Rockwell has written an article about mostly the same topic. There was quite a discussion about it on Paul Lester’s blog, and the general consensus of the comments is, that it is a good idea to just use one fast prime.

Simplicity.

Funny, I recently went the other route.

You know me, I have used different primes, not religiously, though at times almost exclusively, but my most recent acquisition, the Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC, is one incredibly useful zoom. Again, it’s not religiously, but it has been on my camera almost exclusively since I bought it on November 6. And for me the argument is just the same: Simplicity.

This lens covers a big enough range to be very useful, it is fast, at least compared to other consumer zooms, it is sharp, its other quality characteristics are very well “good enough”, and finally the stabilization boosts its usefulness in low light tremendously.

Where is the simplicity, you ask? In not having to change lenses and still being able to hold images that I could hardly hold with the fastest prime.

This does not take away from the beneficial effect that primes have on one’s creativity, but shooting with primes is always kind of a challenge. There is some tension. It’s always the question if you can turn what you see, into the image that you want, given the lens that you have. This tension can force you into unexplored territory, thus sparking off creativity, but taking away that tension does not automatically turn you uncreative. Thankfully it works mostly one way.

The one camera / one lens routine teaches you to think about your photography. It raises the level by making photography that little bit harder, but really, what you learn that way, is not automatically unlearned when you change to a zoom. Once you’ve acquired it, you keep it, regardless of lenses. Just something to think about.

The Song of the Day is “Nobody Knows You (When You’re Down And Out)” in one of the best versions that I know: Nina Simone on her classic 1965 album “Pastel Blues”. I have it in the collection “Four Women: Nina Simone Philips Recordings”. Hear it on YouTube.

It’s a lie. It was not cold yesterday, but it was cold three days ago, and that’s what I want to talk about.

Today there was a discussion on Photo.net (in this thread) about problems with a Nikon D80 camera sometimes not recognizing a mounted Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC. The original poster mentioned having had the problem in cold weather, and that immediately reminded me of my own experience during the last few cold days.

What happens is, that the Nikon D300 suddenly displays an aperture of 1.2, just like with unrecognized, unchipped lenses. I suppose that it really is the cold that makes the metal on lens and mount shrink slightly. This could possibly lead to bad contact. Or is it just the cold affecting the lens’ internal electronics? I don’t know. What I do know is, that I have already seen this with a Tokina 16-50/2.8, with my Sigma 10-20 and also with my Nikon 18-200 VR. I can only remember the circumstances with the Sigma: it was on a mountain in winter, and it was extremely cold.

I can’t look into this issue at the moment. Out temperatures have risen considerably during the last two days. Does anybody of you have similar experiences?

The Song of the Day is “Cold” from the 2009 Maxwell album “BLACKsummers’night”. I have added the numeral II to the title, because we had it once in “859 – Cold“, although with a completely different song then. YouTube has a video.

Here is another HDR image from this afternoon. It’s again been tone-mapped with Essential HDR. I like the snappy look that this program produces.

I have labeled this post to be part of my review of the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm 2.8 XR Di II VC LD Asp IF, the lens that I have bought three weeks ago and that I use exclusively at the moment. I have no interesting sample images, but I thought I should relate another problem of this lens, a problem that I ran into just yesterday and that could influence your buying decision.

Lens flares, ghosts, all sorts of fancy colored things will haunt you when you point this lens towards the sun. It is as if light bounces around and gets reflected back to the sensor by every single element in this lens. In fact, I think that’s just what’s happening

This is no lens to shoot into the sun. Never. It’s not bad, it’s disastrous. Don’t do it.

I will look into this deeper, and I will give you samples. This will most likely not happen before next weekend. I need bright sun and some time for this. On the other hand, whatever my attempts at a more exact method may unearth, it won’t change the result substantially.

How does this change my verdict? Hmm … not really. I have bought this lens for two purposes, as a travel zoom and as a low light lens. I have not yet used it on any trip, especially not in bright sunlight, but from the sunny days so far I can say that it performs very well as long as you don’t have the sun in your frame. I guess I can live with that. And the low light part is just perfect.

Let me put it this way: Each lens is a compromise. The cheaper the lens, the bigger the compromises. By and large you tend to get what you pay for. If you look at it this way, and if you account for the fantastic low-light capability, the excellent sharpness and the stabilization, then this lens is certainly a fine purchase. It is a good overall performer, it is a low light wonder, the occasional autofocus hiccups are too rare to make much effect, distortions are so-so, and finally flares are a problem. OK, my advice is very simple: just use this lens for what it is best at. Use it, don’t abuse it. Avoid shooting into the sun and you’re OK. There are other lenses better suited for that. It’s a compromise.

The Song of the Day is “Sun Goes Down” from the 2003 Deep Purple album “Bananas”. Hear it on YouTube.

I am chasing a black cat in a pitch black room, and so far I can’t rule out that it’s metaphysical.

Fact is, that I have the feeling that the new Tamron SP AF 17-50mm 2.8 XR Di II VC LD Asp IF performs not as well as it could, at least in the autofocus department. The only hard fact is, that the lens sometimes does not focus. Turn the camera off, turn it back on, everything is OK. It does not happen all the time it does not happen every second, third, or whatever-th time, but it sure happens every now and then.

So far Earl has contributed that his Tamron 28-300 behaves just as my 17-50. This may be a Tamron problem after all. On the other hand, it may be not. We are still far from having a statistically relevant sample.

I have an idea. I will compare this lens set to 35mm with the Nikon 35/1.8. I will make the comparison at f2.8, an aperture that both lenses are capable of. I will test different AF points, focusing from infinity to a certain target, the same from very near to that target, making the images without checking, just as one would in action, repeat 10 times for every lens and point and focusing way. Then I’ll count the perfectly focused vs slightly focused vs unfocused images and compare by lens. This is pretty tedious and I’ll need good light, thus it needs to wait for the weekend, but it will give me a clue about the general AF performance and accuracy of this lens.

I expect though, that my the results will support my current feeling: When it focuses, it focuses very accurately, at least that’s what I can say about the center AF point, the one that I use most often.

The other problem is, that when you’re trying to track down such a problem, you quickly begin to see ghosts. Take yesterday: I suddenly found that it did not focus at all. Oh dear, now it’s broken, I thought, but in reality I had accidentally set the camera to manual focus

The Song of the Day is “Light Nights” from Paul Weller’s recent album “22 Dreams”. See him perform live on YouTube.

There is a funny thing going on with this new Tamron SP AF 17-50mm 2.8 XR Di II VC LD Asp IF. Sometimes it does not focus.

What happens is this: I try to make an image, I recognize that the camera does not focus, i.e. I get no AF confirmation beep (yes, Ken Rockwell says that’s unmanly, I know ), I turn the camera off, on again, half-press the shutter release, and it works. Perfect autofocus.

It doesn’t happen all the time. I can’t yet tell when it happens and when not. Due to the way I work, it does not really bother me, but I recognize that it may bother other people to the point where it renders this lens useless for them. Just think of someone using it to photograph children or animals. This is the kind of photography where you can’t accept that a lens sometimes needs a hard reset.

As I said, so far I have not found out if there is a certain pattern, and if so, what the pattern is. Those things need time, but I currently look into it, consciously try to find it out. The only thing that’s for sure at the moment is, that there is indeed a problem.

If you have such a lens (I am talking of the new, stabilized version), regardless of what your experience is, if it works for you or not, please drop me a line. I’m really interested to find out.

The Song of the Day is “Silver & Gold” from Neil Young’s equally titled 2000 album. See part of a live performance on YouTube.

Welcome to the next installment of my review of the new Tamron SP AF 17-50mm 2.8 XR Di II VC LD Asp IF. Today I look into the “VC” part and talk about the consequences of having a stabilized lens in that focal range.

This lens is not meant for full-frame (FX) cameras. On my Nikon D300 it is equivalent to 25.5-75mm, that’s roughly the same as the familiar 24-70/2.8 on FX. Canon covers both ranges with stabilized lenses, Nikon covers them as well, but without stabilization. The Nikon AF-S DX 17-55/2.8 is generally regarded as a fine lens, though slightly overpriced, and the Nikon AF-S 24-70/2.8 G, the new version that was introduced along with the D3, is frequently touted the best 24-70 on the planet, even though it is not stabilized. This is the field where the new Tamron tries to compete.

We have already seen quite satisfiable optical qualities. I don’t have any of the Canon lenses to compare, I have neither of the two Nikon lenses and no Nikon FX body to use the Nikon 24-70 as it was meant to be used, thus I have a hard time putting this new Tamron into reference. From what I’ve seen so far, and from images taken with the Nikon 17-55 that I’ve seen online, I suppose that the Nikon is better as regards corner sharpness wide open, and certainly as regards distortions. The distortions on the Tamron are more complex, of the mustache type, and therefore not completely correctable in Photoshop, although specialized applications like PTLens can do it, once they support the lens. Again, from what I’ve heard, the Tamron is clearly no match for the Nikon 24-70 on an FX camera.

That is all well. The Nikon 17-55 costs twice as much, the Nikon 24-70 even almost three times. They are well supposed to be better, and as is so often the case, you don’t get twice the performance for twice the money. The question is, how does Vibration Control, Tamron’s term for what Canon calls Image Stabilization and Nikon calls Vibration Reduction, change the overall verdict?

We have to look into two questions: The first is, does it work? The answer is a resounding YES. It works, and I’d say it works at least as well as Nikon’s VR, maybe even a little better, but that may be my subjective impression, founded in nothing but my satisfaction with the present purchase.

Take this completely mundane image of bicycles standing in a dark, hardly lit street. This is not even completely sharp, and what do I mean by dark, hardly lit?

Well, just take a look at the technical data. Btw, you can do that yourself. All the images on my new blog have intact EXIF data. Firefox does not show it, of course Internet Explorer doesn’t either, and while some browsers like Opera do so, you can always save the image and open it in Photoshop or any other image processing program.

Enough of that. This image was taken at ISO 3200, f2.8 and 1/2s. Handheld. Sure, it is not completely sharp, I could have very likely got a better result out of a burst (hehe, a “burst” at 1/2s ) of three or five images, and maybe even trying one more time would have sufficed. This is just a single, first, half-hearted attempt – and it is pretty enough for web use. I wouldn’t print this big (especially not this), but for documentary purposes even this image is OK. Or maybe not, because in reality it was so much darker, that this is rather forensic research than a documentary image

So, this is the horizon. Obviously it works and it works well. So far I have taken images at 1/8s and 50mm. I can’t hold this all of the time, but maybe every other time. 1/15s is what I have set as limit before the camera automatically raises ISO. That’s what I feel confident to be able to hold almost always at 50mm and always at 17mm.

The other question is: Do we need stabilization in such a wide lens? In general the answer to that question depends on who you ask. Nikon users tend to deny it, everybody else tends to acknowledge it. Basically: if you can have it, you want it, if you can’t, you pretend you don’t. There are exceptions, but go to any camera forum, ask the question, I bet it’s mostly along these lines.

Now that Nikon users can have it as well, how is it really? Is it worth the premium? The stabilized version of this lens costs almost twice as much as the non-stabilized.

As so often, it depends. For instance on what you photograph and when and how you do it. Stabilization is useless for sports. You want to photograph players, not moving ghosts. It is a mixed situation in the wedding market, stabilization may work well during the ceremony within a dark church (that’s exactly where you need it most), it won’t work for dancing couples. But then, you can always turn it off.

Some landscape photographers work principally from the tripod. Obviously stabilization is wasted on them. For my own uses, photographing on the street, always without tripod, not caring about motion blur, to the contrary, using it as an artistic opportunity, for me image stabilization is tremendous progress. So far I had it only on the Nikon 18-200 VR and on the Nikon 70-300 VR, direly needing it in the long focal ranges, now I have it in this very useful range on a constant f2.8 zoom and I am exalted.

Would I change to a D3s and the non-stabilized Nikon 24-70? Sure! Now that the D3s has sensor cleaning like every other DSLR on the planet (with the exception of the D3X, but that’s only a cheap one, isn’t it?), I would gladly take the superior sensor and give up stabilization, at least if I had the money to burn.

Would I exchange lenses with someone offering me the twice as expensive and optically slightly better Nikon 17-55? Never!!!

That’s it for stabilization so far. I probably should look into the question of panning, because this lens does not have two different stabilization modes like the Nikon lenses do, one for panning, one for total stabilization. Maybe with this lens VC must be turned off in order for panning to work, but maybe Tamron applies some magic and this is not necessary. I’ll have to try to find out.

As regards the images, the Image of the Day was taken at f2.8, ISO 3200, -0.7EV and 1/10s. I have removed a car in the background and the white license plate

The image with the street corner is straight from the camera. f2.8, ISO 1400, -0.7EV and 1/15s.

The Song of the Day is “Rock Steady” from the 2007 Aretha Franklin compilation “Rare & Unreleased Recordings from the Golden Reign of the Queen of Soul”. See her live on YouTube.

This is the second in a series of entries about my newest lens, the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm 2.8 XR Di II VC LD Asp IF. Just like in the last post, these images are from Saturday. I haven’t gone out today, weather was rainy throughout, and the only images that I have made, were some reproductions of old photographies.

The first image is of a yellow sign that I found on a garden fence. It asks for caution when digging, because of a power cable. I liked color, texture and the crumpled look. The image has been treated with a healthy dose of Topaz Detail, strongly emphasizing local contrast. This is f5.6 at 50mm.

The next image is from the same place as the Image of the Day. It’s a former restaurant/café at the foot of a tower where once pellets were cast. It is on the northern shore of Wörthersee, the most prominent of Carinthia’s many lakes.

On the left side you have the image just as it came out of the camera, on the right side is my version from RAW, where I have tried to extract as much detail as possible, and to present the late autumn afternoon colors as radiating as they were. Additionally I have tried to correct the strong barrel distortion at 17mm with PTLens. I am not completely sure what the problem is, I strongly suppose PTLens mistakes this lens for its predecessor, the version without stabilization. In any case the correction is obviously wrong. It is quite OK at 17mm, there really is barrel distortion, but at 50mm PTLens tries to correct a pincushion distortion that is clearly not there. Maybe I should take my time and provide the necessary input for Tom to make the correction profile

The image was taken at f8. Other tests say that this lens’ sweet spot is at f5.6, this conforms to my own impression, but f8 is pretty good as well. Both thumbnails link to the full-size images. The JPEG right out of the camera is very sharp, my version builds upon that. I have corrected distortion, added saturation and sharpened the image, but otherwise I have left it pretty much as it was. Just see for yourself. I’d say I see some sharpness falloff in the farthest corners, not bad at all, but noticeable, even when not photographing charts.

The Image of the Day is a detail from the front building. Here is again the original from the camera, both this thumbnail and the Image of the Day link to full-size versions.

This is again f8, this time at 50mm. In this case I have added local contrast with Topaz Detail, added some saturation and again sharpened the image. I have not applied any distortion correction. PTLens would have so, albeit grossly wrong. Actually this looks pretty good to me.

As regards sharpness, this image is razor sharp across the frame, and if you look at the big version of the Image of the Day, I’d be surprised if it were possible to get any more detail out of a 12 megapixel sensor, regardless of camera brand, regardless of lens. This is as good as it gets.

Well, here we are. So far we have looked at nominal conditions, i.e. sharpness at f8, an aperture that we are likely to use in typical landscape images. The result is good at 17mm and outright excellent at 50mm. This is also as expected. Zooms frequently show some weakness at their shortest focal length. In this case there is strong barrel distortion and a tiny bit of sharpness falloff in the far corners. The former can be corrected after the fact, the latter is not bad at all and unlikely to be a problem in real-world situations. We’ll have to make a further look into performance at f2.8 though. This will be the topic of another post.

The Song of the Day is “Razor Love” from Neil Young’s 2000 album “Silver & Gold”. Hear a live performance on YouTube.

This is the first in a series of entries about my newest lens, the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm 2.8 XR Di II VC LD Asp IF. These images are from Saturday, a day that began with rain in the morning and ended as a wonderful autum day. In the first two posts I want to look into two questions, bokeh and sharpness. So far I have made no formal tests, no charts, no brick walls, nothing standardized. Let’s begin with bokeh.

In the morning I had brought the car to the repair shop for a check. I used the 40 minutes to take a walk through a residential area down to river Gail. There I made the Image of the Day. While walking, I constantly made images, many of them I deleted immediately, some make good examples for what this lens is capable of.

I have bought this lens although I have seen some examples of remarkably bad bokeh. They were in a Japanese review with many images, and some of them don’t just look bad, they look outright ugly. Thus my expectations regarding bokeh were very low.

Now, if you look at the image of the red berries on a hedge, wet with rain, the image taken at f5.6, then this does not look bad at all. I have linked this image to the full-size original straight from the camera. See for yourself.

The next pair of images, linked to the originals as well, was taken at f2.8 and f8, and finally there is another pair, the one with the twigs crossing, taken at f2.8 and f5.6, all images so far at a focal length of 50mm and focused near.

Basically I can see nothing that would be wrong in these images. Obviously this lens does not have a serious bokeh problem at the long end. This is very fortunate, because exactly at the long end it is, where we are most interested in creamy bokeh. Well, this is certainly not a Sigma 50/1.4, but I think the examples don’t put Tamron’s zoom to shame either. I’d regard this bokeh as at least neutral.

Unfortunately this doesn’t mean everything’s perfect though. Let’s have a look at this cute little cat. I met her on my way down to the river, and obviously she expected some cookies from me, because she constantly thwarted my efforts to take an image of her by clinging to my feet. I took a series of images holding the camera down to her, most of them are focused on my feet or on the background, but this one came out quite well, even though I’d have liked the right paw to have been completely inside of the frame. Anyway, the cat’s pose is more than cute, and the image perfectly shows where this lens’ problem with bokeh lies. Look at the hedge in the middle of the upper edge. I can’t say for sure what the light points are, maybe it’s simply sky shining through, but those points are decidedly donut-shaped. The manhole cover in the background, left behind the cat’s face, looks almost equally ugly.

Is it that bad? I’d say no. Of course I’d have liked the bokeh at 17mm to be creamy as well, but normally when I am photographing at 17mm, I am not looking for bokeh, I am rather going for depth of field. And if I’m not, if I am forced to use f2.8 just to get as much light as I can, honestly, then bokeh is normally not my first consideration either. These are the cases of getting the shot or not.

All in all, when it comes to bokeh, I am pleasantly surprised by the performance at 50mm, while the results at 17mm are about as expected. This is it for bokeh, the next post will be about sharpness and distortion.

The Song of the Day is “Cream” from Prince’s 1991 album “Diamonds and Pearls”. See an acoustic performance on Dailymotion.