Is the Tamron 17-50mm a good upgrade from the kit lens in terms of image quality?

Steven001

Steven001

Messages
1,531
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi folks,

I know there have been countless threads based on the Tamron and I have rest a lot of them, but not many that compare it to the kit lens. I primarily shoot landscapes and wondered if it's worth upgrading the kit lens to the Tamron (second hand non VC). I realise the extra 1mm in focal length will make next to no difference and the fast aperture wont be used for landscapes, but I find the kit lens a little soft and lacking in quality. Am I likely to notice much of a difference shooting at f8 or f11?

I know the Sigma 10-20mm is a good option for landscapes, however it costs a little more than I'm willing to spend at the moment and I'm not sure if it would get as much use as the 17-50mm as I've never shot in that focal length before.

Thanks.
 
I can't speak for the Nikon kit lens but for the Canon it is a very tangible improvement. The constant fast aperture and sharpness is a definite bonus. Although there is talk of sample variation, though mine was very good.

However, remember you will lose around 12.55mm of focal length at the long end (the difference between 50mm and 55mm on crop). This may be significant to you, it may not.
 
get a sigma dp1 or dp3 (stitching) if you want quality for landscapes, probably lighter than the tamron too.
 
Haven't tried the Canon kit lens but my wife has the Tamron 17-50 (non VC) and I have been very impressed with the image quality.
 
I moved up from the Nikon 18-70 to the tamron non vc and it is always on the camera. You need to make sure you get a sharp copy.
 
I have the VC version - brilliant lens and well worth the upgrade
 
Thanks for all your input guys. As I said the Tamron does seem to get a really good write-up as being a good value for money lens, however I'm wondering if I am likely to notice much difference between the two lenses shot at f/8, as I plan on using it mostly for landscapes (although the low aperture will come in handy for other uses I'm sure).
 
Tamron is an excellent lens - I used it for around 3 years as an upgrade from the kit lens. It is a big improvement, but I would suggest you wait longer and save up for a sigma 10-20mm for landscapes.

If you are happy to buy 2nd hand there isn't actually that much difference in price between the two anyway
 
Steven001 said:
Thanks for all your input guys. As I said the Tamron does seem to get a really good write-up as being a good value for money lens, however I'm wondering if I am likely to notice much difference between the two lenses shot at f/8, as I plan on using it mostly for landscapes (although the low aperture will come in handy for other uses I'm sure).
Click to expand...

I will say no, I am not taking anything away from the Tamron, excellent lens for the money but the main reason to upgrade to one IMO is the wider aperture to aid in low light/DoF. landscapes at f8 I feel you will be disappointed with your £200ish spend.. much better waiting for a 10-20 if landscapes are your thing..

also consider looking at older manual lenses or Samyangs line up as you don't really need AF do you for landscapes and you might bag a bargain.
 
When I sold my 1000d with the kit lens' after buying a 60d body, a lot of people on tp recommended the tamron. I use it for landscapes and a general lens. Its a bigger filter size so let's in more light. But to awnser your question, I don't know. I never did any comparison shots even though I had both lens' at the same time before selling the 1000d kit. So not much help then lol. I think though if I didn't need to let the kit lens go with the kit i'd have kept it and got something like the sigma, especially as I like landscapes too.

At the end of the day unless you're having trouble with the kit lens isn't it better to increase your lens choice for now? You can always update the kit later.
 
I love my one but as far as overall iq is concerned I wouldn't say that 90% of the earths population would be able to see a massive difference between a kit lens and an L lens.

There are some stunning shots from kit lens and better lens alike but for me the main reason to upgrade was the better build quality and the faster 2.8 as I needed it for my work.

If you don't need the 2.8 then I will be honest I think it would be debatable as to if you thought it was 100% better.

In saying that I love mine, its superb even at 2.8 its super sharp but is it worthy of the £200-£280 if you don't need the 2.8..... only you can decide.
 
Speaking as a canon user, i upgraded from a Canon 18-55 IS Kit lens to the non-VC Tamron 17-50mm. Stopped down the canon lens was as sharp as the Tamron at the same aperture and had the benefit of IS (should you forget your tripod). Not sure in Nikon terms, but to get an improvement over the canon kit lens at f8 you would have to upgrade to a Canon L lens (17-40mm) or a wide angle lndscape lens (10-20) where you may see greater sharpness and constrast.

I know all lens and cameras are different, but to get a measured comparison i would suggest looking at photzone.de. The resolution tables will give you a figure at say f8 which corresponds to the sharpness. If you are looking at 3rd party lens for comparison you could try thedigitalpicture.com. I know this is for canon cameras, but you an select say a sigma 10-20 and compare at 20mm against a tamron 17-50. i assume the glass should be the same for Nikon and Canon.

Sorry i can't be of more relevant help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top