<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Tamron 17-50 VC Small Review</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.photoshopphotography.com/tamron-17-50-vc-review/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.photoshopphotography.com/tamron-17-50-vc-review/</link>
	<description>Learn easy Photoshop tips for your digital photographs</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:24:58 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: adrian</title>
		<link>http://www.photoshopphotography.com/tamron-17-50-vc-review/comment-page-1/#comment-532</link>
		<dc:creator>adrian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:37:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.photoshopphotography.com/?p=300#comment-532</guid>
		<description>After being (again) a few days in service, they&#039;ve changed again my lens. The new one has no problems with the VC on any conditions. 
All in all, the tamron CAN be a very good choice, but unfortunately you must be willing (and possible) to change 1-2-3 times the lens until you got a good copy.
best regards,
Adrian.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After being (again) a few days in service, they&#8217;ve changed again my lens. The new one has no problems with the VC on any conditions.<br />
All in all, the tamron CAN be a very good choice, but unfortunately you must be willing (and possible) to change 1-2-3 times the lens until you got a good copy.<br />
best regards,<br />
Adrian.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.photoshopphotography.com/tamron-17-50-vc-review/comment-page-1/#comment-516</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:58:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.photoshopphotography.com/?p=300#comment-516</guid>
		<description>I am living in Thailand now. Hence, I can not really tell you what wrong with VC in harshly cold condition. 

Cheers,
Admin</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am living in Thailand now. Hence, I can not really tell you what wrong with VC in harshly cold condition. </p>
<p>Cheers,<br />
Admin</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: adrian</title>
		<link>http://www.photoshopphotography.com/tamron-17-50-vc-review/comment-page-1/#comment-461</link>
		<dc:creator>adrian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:42:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.photoshopphotography.com/?p=300#comment-461</guid>
		<description>Hello,
i bought this lens (for canon), and i noticed a strange behavior of the VC:
it happens to be winter so i went outside for a test: the image stabilizer stopped working, inside it works pretty ok. So i tested a few times and i have the same behavior: outside (at 0-3 degrees Celsius) the VC si quite (no working noise, no effect) inside at 15+ degrees it works.
Can anyone tell me if it is a normal behavior? Thank you.

For the optical quality i am pretty impressed: sharp even from 2.8 and accurate focus (though i changed the lens once because the first one had a focusing problem).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello,<br />
i bought this lens (for canon), and i noticed a strange behavior of the VC:<br />
it happens to be winter so i went outside for a test: the image stabilizer stopped working, inside it works pretty ok. So i tested a few times and i have the same behavior: outside (at 0-3 degrees Celsius) the VC si quite (no working noise, no effect) inside at 15+ degrees it works.<br />
Can anyone tell me if it is a normal behavior? Thank you.</p>
<p>For the optical quality i am pretty impressed: sharp even from 2.8 and accurate focus (though i changed the lens once because the first one had a focusing problem).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nui</title>
		<link>http://www.photoshopphotography.com/tamron-17-50-vc-review/comment-page-1/#comment-419</link>
		<dc:creator>Nui</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 2009 04:11:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.photoshopphotography.com/?p=300#comment-419</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the review. It is great and very helpful. Keep going.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the review. It is great and very helpful. Keep going.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.photoshopphotography.com/tamron-17-50-vc-review/comment-page-1/#comment-415</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:06:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.photoshopphotography.com/?p=300#comment-415</guid>
		<description>Mat, 

One more thing, you normally hand-held while using the lens. If the shutter speed is fast enough, we should have nice photos based on good AF : ) Otherwise, this lens that I use with D300 may have AF error.

Cheers,</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mat, </p>
<p>One more thing, you normally hand-held while using the lens. If the shutter speed is fast enough, we should have nice photos based on good AF : ) Otherwise, this lens that I use with D300 may have AF error.</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.photoshopphotography.com/tamron-17-50-vc-review/comment-page-1/#comment-414</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:48:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.photoshopphotography.com/?p=300#comment-414</guid>
		<description>Mat,

It possibly cause the problem because I took photos with handheld. Well, if I have a chance, I will try to set on tripod. 
Thanks for sharing your idea.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mat,</p>
<p>It possibly cause the problem because I took photos with handheld. Well, if I have a chance, I will try to set on tripod.<br />
Thanks for sharing your idea.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mat</title>
		<link>http://www.photoshopphotography.com/tamron-17-50-vc-review/comment-page-1/#comment-413</link>
		<dc:creator>Mat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:02:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.photoshopphotography.com/?p=300#comment-413</guid>
		<description>sorry, hand held is NOT the way to test AF.  The f2.8, I can&#039;t tell if lens blur or shake blur, or AF error.  f2.8 shot looks horrible, worse than non VC one.  I hope it is AF error only.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>sorry, hand held is NOT the way to test AF.  The f2.8, I can&#8217;t tell if lens blur or shake blur, or AF error.  f2.8 shot looks horrible, worse than non VC one.  I hope it is AF error only.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.photoshopphotography.com/tamron-17-50-vc-review/comment-page-1/#comment-339</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:00:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.photoshopphotography.com/?p=300#comment-339</guid>
		<description>From what i tried, i&#039;ve not seen any out of focus shots yet. I am pretty impressed with this version. 

Cheers,</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From what i tried, i&#8217;ve not seen any out of focus shots yet. I am pretty impressed with this version. </p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill</title>
		<link>http://www.photoshopphotography.com/tamron-17-50-vc-review/comment-page-1/#comment-241</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 04:48:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.photoshopphotography.com/?p=300#comment-241</guid>
		<description>How the AF accuracy??? I know this version&#039;s AF is faster than the first built-in motor version but the AF accuracy is more of a concern to me.  AF accuracy is  something that that plague the Tamron 17-50 in the past.

Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How the AF accuracy??? I know this version&#8217;s AF is faster than the first built-in motor version but the AF accuracy is more of a concern to me.  AF accuracy is  something that that plague the Tamron 17-50 in the past.</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II VC LD Aspherical IF SP AF &#171;</title>
		<link>http://www.photoshopphotography.com/tamron-17-50-vc-review/comment-page-1/#comment-210</link>
		<dc:creator>Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II VC LD Aspherical IF SP AF &#171;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:44:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.photoshopphotography.com/?p=300#comment-210</guid>
		<description>[...] http://www.photoshopphotography.com/tamron-17-50-vc-review/ SLRgear: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1297/cat/23  34.693738 135.502165   [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] <a href="http://www.photoshopphotography.com/tamron-17-50-vc-review/" rel="nofollow">http://www.photoshopphotography.com/tamron-17-50-vc-review/</a> SLRgear: <a href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1297/cat/23" rel="nofollow">http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1297/cat/23</a>  34.693738 135.502165   [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 0.813 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2010-03-11 01:18:33 -->
