Is the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 any good?

Magnus said:
Insanely good for the price for video, for photos the autofocus is annoyingly slow, noisy and it lacks IS, but to get something better you're spending at least double. *** 17mm isn't a lot wider than your 18-270 at all though, I'd get a tokina 11-16(f/2.8), amazing lens, nothing even comes close to being as good***.
Click to expand...

He's after a mid range zoom, not a UWA!
 
dalegt4 said:
strange, I don't think it looks stunningly expensive but by a long shot not cheap, the canon 50mm 1.8 looks cheap. haha :D
Click to expand...

When the Canon equivalent is three times more, it's cheap..

toadstool said:
I hired the "real deal" Canon lens and really loved it, couldn't afford the price tag so bought a secondhand tamron 17-50. And far, far preferred it. Build quality felt no different to the canon, it wasn't any louder than the canon and it gave me a sharper photo. The photo was a lot "cleaner" looking, too. Bokeh was ever so slightly smoother. I didn't use it wishing I could have afforded the Canon one - I used it glad that I couldn't afford the canon!
Click to expand...

It is louder than the Canon by far, I've owned both. The Canon probably isn't worth the difference but is sharper with less distortion, CA and vignetting.
 
Last edited:
It wasn't any louder to me. I had the canon for, I think it was, a fortnight. The sigma gave me the sharper photo and I didn't notice distortion, CA or vignetting with either lens :shrug:
 
Janesy B said:
When the Canon equivalent is three times more, it's cheap..



It is louder than the Canon by far, I've owned both. The Canon probably isn't worth the difference but is sharper with less distortion, CA and vignetting.
Click to expand...

I said it doesn't look that cheap... I never compared the value of the product to anything let alone a £800 canon, I said "it" insinuating that the lens looks to me, for the best part ok and sturdy. :)
 
I had a vc one that I used on a 40D. It was a very sharp lens but have to agree with the masses and say the auto focus is a bit slow and noisy. I got mine on this forum.
 
I understand there are two different non VC versions - one with an internal motor and one without. A lot of people have said that the auto focus is slow, would that be the case with both versions? I have a D90 so wouldn't require the built in focus motor.
 
Don't get the VC version, it isn't as sharp as the non VC one. This is a great lens for the money. I've seen hundreds of shots taken with it and the vast majority look great. Unfortunately, I'm on a shoestring budget and can't afford to shell out $400 for one. This is a lens I'd like to have in my bag, but at the moment it's not very cost effective for me.
 
Don't believe the old VC vs non-VC argument. I have the VC and its plenty sharp.
 
Steven001 said:
Can anyone clarify if there are any differences in sharpness or focus speed with the focus motor and non focus motor versions?
Click to expand...

I heard/read watching reviews and such stuff that the very oldish version is faster for focusing a little than the version with motors but I think it depends a little on how strong the in body motor is as well which makes sense.

Sharpness, well I watched an interesting video on youtube and it clearly showed the non VC much sharper, but the guy had VC switched on and did not even know how to properly use VC, so yeah he was using VC in daylight on a portrait type shot wide open so I imagine he had a high shutter speed all ready and all the VC did was blur his shots a little or he didn't even wait for it to settle?

That's another thing I heard/read, with the VC version if you have it switched on you have to wait for about a second after focus before taking the shot, if not you will catch out the VC (as in it's not quite stable yet)
 
Ivan S said:
I heard/read watching reviews and such stuff that the very oldish version is faster for focusing a little than the version with motors but I think it depends a little on how strong the in body motor is as well which makes sense. Sharpness, well I watched an interesting video on youtube and it clearly showed the non VC much sharper, but the guy had VC switched on and did not even know how to properly use VC, so yeah he was using VC in daylight on a portrait type shot wide open so I imagine he had a high shutter speed all ready and all the VC did was blur his shots a little or he didn't even wait for it to settle? That's another thing I heard/read, with the VC version if you have it switched on you have to wait for about a second after focus before taking the shot, if not you will catch out the VC (as in it's not quite stable yet)
Click to expand...

Apart from user error the VC itself won't blur the picture, I'm sure if it did every lens would be recalled due to a massive design flaw!
 
Hi all,

Thank you to everyone who has commented here.
I ordered the non-VC version from MPB on Thursday and it arrived on Friday morning.

My copy was Exc++ but may as well have been mint.

Having had ample chance to use it this weekend I am very impressed!
It's really sharp as others have said, and although it does make some noise it's no louder than my other lenses. I was a little concerned about this but having heard it, it's really not an issue.

I guess it depends on an individual's opinion of a loud lens.

Thanks again! :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top