tamron 17-50 2.8 as a back up

lexie

lexie

Messages
952
Name
keith
Edit My Images
Yes
would the tamron 17-50mm 2.8 be a useful back up to the 50mm 1.8 and 35mm 1.8? i've heard bad things regarding sigma lenses on sony bodies, so they are out the window.
would tamron be considered 'inferior' to sigma? i only ask because the sigmas seem to go for more money most of the time

i should add that it would be used for portrait work
 
Last edited:
The non VC version is actually sharper than the sigma and a damn good lens, its only downside is slight AF noise, but its nothing to worry about, build is fine, AF works fine, cant fault it, especially for the money.
The other advantage is it will close focus to around 8" from the subject, so its handy for hand held self portraits, or unusual wide angle effect shots.

*The VC version is slightly softer than the non VC version, so go for the non VC.
 
lexie said:
My sony has built in stabilization so i have no need for the vc version so that's a plus. And a bit of focusing noise never hurt anyone lol.
For the money these can be picked up for it's looking very tempting.
Click to expand...

Tamron don't make a Sony VC version so you only have the non-VC which to me is much better and cheaper :)
 
Never used a Sigma, but have heard that while they can be very good, they can also be very bad. If you look at my posts about WIlliam made yesterday in the Portrait section, they were all shot with the Tamron 28-75.
 
cambsno said:
Never used a Sigma, but have heard that while they can be very good, they can also be very bad. If you look at my posts about WIlliam made yesterday in the Portrait section, they were all shot with the Tamron 28-75.
Click to expand...

simon they look great, i was thinking of getting this lens as a back up to a couple of primes but now i'm thinking about it more as a serious alternative after seeing those shots. i'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this lens as you are doing what i am aiming to be doing in the future. how often would you use it for your work? and have you found any limitations with it?
 
Well, out of my 3 lenses (in my sig) it has been the least used out of pure snobbery!!! I have tended to use the 50mm or 70-200 more and used the Tamron as a walkabout. Not done any comparison shots, but would expect my prime to be better around 2.8, but once you get to f5.6 it seems to be very good. Will be posting more from a shoot today which I used this lens. I do find primes more fun as zooms make me lazy and think less, but it is a good lens.
 
I have the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and on my 20D it's sharp at f2.8 and very sharp at f4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top