Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC

lucky_13

lucky_13

Messages
624
Name
Billy
Edit My Images
Yes
Is the tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC better than the canon 18-55 is kit lens?
In IQ and other areas?
I would go for for the canon 17-55 f2.8 is usm but I can't afford it and the sigma 17-50 hsm os f2.8 seams a bit expensive too.
 
Yes it is better, the non VC version is better than the VC version.

Personally I would save and get the canon
 
POAH said:
Yes it is better, the non VC version is better than the VC version.

Personally I would save and get the canon
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that the latest versions with VC are supposed to be better than previous versions of it. Ps: I do t think I can justify spending almost £800 on a lens that might be slightly better than a £325 one.
 
Yes, it is better than the Canon 18-55. Lovely and sharp, good focusing. As for VC versus non-VC, consider how much your hands shake and how you'll be using it. My hands are very shaky so, whilst non VC on a tripod may have been better than VC, it's generally a lens I'm going to be using handheld so VC was the best option for me.

My father has the Canon 17-55. He's often said that it certainly isn't twice as good as mine, and if his broke he wouldn't replace it with another 17-55, he'd get a Tamron instead. In a test we did, it was hard to see the difference in IQ.
 
Sadly that's the he canon have on you. The canon is better than the tamron in every respect Gavin owned both (non-VC)
 
lucky_13 said:
Is the tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC better than the canon 18-55 is kit lens?
In IQ and other areas?
I would go for for the canon 17-55 f2.8 is usm but I can't afford it and the sigma 17-50 hsm os f2.8 seams a bit expensive too.
Click to expand...

It depends what's important to you, the iq probably isn't worth it, but the Canon will nail focus where the Tamron and Sigma simply won't.

If those situations are important to you, then you need to keep saving, if not, it's your choice.
 
Carousels Spin said:
Yes, it is better than the Canon 18-55. Lovely and sharp, good focusing. As for VC versus non-VC, consider how much your hands shake and how you'll be using it. My hands are very shaky so, whilst non VC on a tripod may have been better than VC, it's generally a lens I'm going to be using handheld so VC was the best option for me.

My father has the Canon 17-55. He's often said that it certainly isn't twice as good as mine, and if his broke he wouldn't replace it with another 17-55, he'd get a Tamron instead. In a test we did, it was hard to see the difference in IQ.
Click to expand...

Thanks buddy, I don't use a tripod at all really, well maybe 2 percent of the shots.
 
yes the Tamron 17-50 vc is a good step up from the kit lens. The constant f2.8 is very nice, focus is quick and the vc is good.

The Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS is a better lens but as you say a lot more money. I would say the canon is 10% better at most.The canon af is quicker and its a little sharper wide open than the Tamron.

The Tamron 17-50 non VC is also a cracker.
 
TBH if the AF is better than my canon 55-250 is lens I'll be very happy as the AF on the canon 55-250 is very very sloooow... the 18-55 kit lens seams super fast when compared to the 55-250, they both have the same AF motor but I guess the 55-250 has more glass to shift about, it's a shame it's not a usm.
 
Yes the Canon 17-55mm is a fine lens, but damn expensive plus you can add another thirty quid for the not included hood

All about the law of diminishing returns and in my opinion the Tamron is a nice lens for the price, considerably better than the kit lens, but there again it should be.
 
lucky_13 said:
I read somewhere that the latest versions with VC are supposed to be better than previous versions of it. Ps: I do t think I can justify spending almost £800 on a lens that might be slightly better than a £325 one.
Click to expand...

Yep also heard this...I see tamron have released a 24-70mm 2.8 vc with their ultrasonic motor in could be interesting!
 
I have seen a few reviews which said the 17-50 vc was soft when 1st produced. I have seen later reviews which have said the lens was greatly improved.

So either Tamron have improved the production process or some are good and others are not so good i.e. they have patchy QC.

I would guess its a bit of both.

I was quite happy with mine when I had it.
 
Last edited:
StuartH said:
Yep also heard this...I see tamron have released a 24-70mm 2.8 vc with their ultrasonic motor in could be interesting!
Click to expand...

That sounds good any idea on a price yet?
 
Personally I think the Canon is £200 over priced, not saying its a bad lens, its not! Just saying its in a league of its own price wise.
 
would any of you recomend the new tamron 24-70 f2.8 vc over the tamron 17-50 f2.8 vc for holiday lens if paired with a canon 10-22 uwa? ps:i know it's not out yet but hypitheticaly..?
 
Most say a 24-70 is too long at the short end on a crop body, as you have the range covered by another lens this should not be an issue.

I guess you could check your current photos and what range they fall in if most are 24-70 range this type of lens might well suit you. If you have lots of pics around 17-30 you will end up doing lots of lens swapping which may become annoying after a while.

As for the Tamron 24-70 VC no idea if it will be a good lens or not
 
tris101 said:
Most say a 24-70 is too long at the short end on a crop body, as you have the range covered by another lens this should not be an issue.

I guess you could check your current photos and what range they fall in if most are 24-70 range this type of lens might well suit you. If you have lots of pics around 17-30 you will end up doing lots of lens swapping which may become annoying after a while.

As for the Tamron 24-70 VC no idea if it will be a good lens or not
Click to expand...

It depends where I am shooting, when I was in Disneyland Paris I only used the 18-55 and I wished I had something much wider like a 10-22 or maybe a 15-85 but 10-22 would have been much better, and everywhere else I hardly ever go below 24 and when I do go below that I wish I could go wider eg city/ architecture, I find 18 not to be wide enough, which is why I think I would be better off getting a 10-22 and a 24-70 f2.8 at least I would have a fast zoom and most of the time I think 55 isn't long enough for most stuff I shoot hoping 70 would be, there's always the 15-85 which would be ideal but not as fast as f2.8
 
lucky_13 said:
It depends where I am shooting, when I was in Disneyland Paris I only used the 18-55 and I wished I had something much wider like a 10-22 or maybe a 15-85 but 10-22 would have been much better, and everywhere else I hardly ever go below 24 and when I do go below that I wish I could go wider eg city/ architecture, I find 18 not to be wide enough, which is why I think I would be better off getting a 10-22 and a 24-70 f2.8 at least I would have a fast zoom and most of the time I think 55 isn't long enough for most stuff I shoot hoping 70 would be, there's always the 15-85 which would be ideal but not as fast as f2.8
Click to expand...

I too sometimes find 55mm not long enough and was considering the canon 24-70mm as I have a sigma 10-20mm. But the 17-55 is a good comprises if you don’t want to swap all the time.

As you say the 15-85 is a nice range if only it was f2.8.....
 
tris101 said:
I too sometimes find 55mm not long enough and was considering the canon 24-70mm as I have a sigma 10-20mm. But the 17-55 is a good comprises if you don’t want to swap all the time.

As you say the 15-85 is a nice range if only it was f2.8.....
Click to expand...
I still think I wouldn't gain anything over the 18-55 focal length wise by going for the 17-50. 15-85 f2.8 would be nice
Or someone like sigma tamron or canon should come up with a 20-135mm f2.8 is usm as they do the likes of 70-200 f2.8 that way it would marry nicely to the 10-22
 
Last edited:
lucky_13 said:
I still think I wouldn't gain anything over the 18-55 focal length wise by going for the 17-50. 15-85 f2.8 would be nice
Or someone like sigma tamron or canon should come up with a 20-135mm f2.8 is usm as they do the likes of 70-200 f2.8 that way it would marry nicely to the 10-22
Click to expand...

You'd gain 1mm at the wide end and loose 5mm long end :).

If you are going to upgrade your 18-55 it needs to be for better glass, maybe faster, maybe a wider focal range - as you say the 15-85 lens.

It's a difficult choice really, only you know what focal range you tend to use.

Canon do a 18-135 lens and also a 28-135 lens. I've had the latter and was very pleased with it, even on a crop body, for me, was a good focal length as a walkabout lens. I've the Sigma 10-20mm and am very pleased with it
 
Optic and IQ the tamron is superb but focus speed is slow compare to sigma and of course canon or nikon.

Depend what you shoot, in general use the tamron will nail the job perfectly.
 
There's a Tamron 17-50 non VC in the classifieds for £200 and a Canon 17-55 for £535 - might be worth a look ?
 
andyred said:
Canon do a 18-135 lens and also a 28-135 lens. I've had the latter and was very pleased with it, even on a crop body, for me, was a good focal length as a walkabout lens. I've the Sigma 10-20mm and am very pleased with it
Click to expand...

I would need something better in IQ and faster f stop than my 18-55 something which the 18-135 isn't. My original choice was to go for the 28-135 but than I was faced with a much harder choice as I realised there were other options like 24-105 and the 15-85 and now I'm being puzzled even more by faster zooms like the 17-50/55 f2.8 and 24-70 f2.8 as I'm realising that my 18-55 is not only too short at the long end and not enough at the wide end but also slow too, I end up taking the same shot 2/3 or even more times to get it sharp in low light which by than the high ISO has kicked in and added some digital noise. And i fear i would suffer from the same problem in low light if i went with the 15-85! Maybe I'm asking too much out of one lens
as 17-50/55 would be fast but it wouldn't be enough to replace an ultra wide and not long enough for other stuff, maybe the only answer is 2 lenses, an 10-22 + 24-70 f2.8 or so!
 
The words moon on a stick spring to mind

Its bite the bullet time and buy two/three lenses or lower expectations a bit and go for an all in one like a 18-200mm

Only going on my choice and that's 10-22mm, 17-55mm and 70-200 f/4 IS

If I were buying now might consider the 70-300mm L IS, but using a 1.4x TC covers that range, the small gap from 55-70 is easily sorted by a pace or two of the feet.
 
Took my 550D to jessops today to try out the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC and I was impressed, the only thing that lets it down is the lack of Hypersonic Motor for the AF. I also tried the Canon 24-70 f2.8 and the Canon 17-40 f4 and there seem to be no difference in IQ between the 3 lenses In my opinion. If only that lens had hypersonic motor! I'm gonna wait till the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC USD comes out so I can take it for a test drive and than decide..
 
Why are you looking at the vc, is there requirement for it?

My non vc lens has never felt like its lacking in performance. It focuses quickly (ok its abig noisy), pin sharp and doesn't weigh much.
 
There's situations where VC/IS is more useful than you'd realise.

I recently upgraded from a Tamron 17-50 non-VC to a Canon 17-55 IS and the 2 huge differences I noticed were IS usefulness and focusing speed/accuracy. Paired with the 7D, the 17-55 is so fast and accurate at focusing, even in low light, it honestly surprised me! It's easily on par with, if not faster than my 70-200.

If you buy a Tamron, you may well want to upgrade again in the future. Buy the Canon 17-55, and you have the best available lens in that focal length.
 
Invertigo said:
There's situations where VC/IS is more useful than you'd realise.

I recently upgraded from a Tamron 17-50 non-VC to a Canon 17-55 IS and the 2 huge differences I noticed were IS usefulness and focusing speed/accuracy. Paired with the 7D, the 17-55 is so fast and accurate at focusing, even in low light, it honestly surprised me! It's easily on par with, if not faster than my 70-200.

If you buy a Tamron, you may well want to upgrade again in the future. Buy the Canon 17-55, and you have the best available lens in that focal length.
Click to expand...

That's true but not for the price canon ask for it. If I was earning a Hurd of money and didn't have much to pay out than I would always by the best as I value quality, but the money is an issue.
 
Last edited:
Two last ones:


IMG_4141 by JY_Photography, on Flickr


Beading by JY_Photography, on Flickr

I love the lens, albeit slow but still a fantastic lens for the money. I think I'd make use of the VC so opted for a VC one and as someone said earlier they apparently rectified all problems with it in the later copies so make sure that the lens isn't over a year and a half if buying second hand, should be fine. :)
 
I've been considering getting the non VC version as I have previously read the VC version was poor by comparison. However, if the newer VC versions are improved then will it be worth the extra £80-£100 on top of the non-VC version?
 
B16 VAS said:
Got my Tamron 17-50mm VC for £210 second hand, barely used, mint condition :)

Some pictures:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/52741858@N05/6474351331/
IMG_3833 by JY_Photography, on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/52741858@N05/6474314397/
IMG_4002 by JY_Photography, on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/52741858@N05/6474064309/
IMG_4175 by JY_Photography, on Flickr

Lowlight:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/52741858@N05/6164439830/
IMG_3152 by JY_Photography, on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/52741858@N05/6163838873/
Corsa C 1.8 SRi by JY_Photography, on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/52741858@N05/6163768045/
Corsa C 1.8 by JY_Photography, on Flickr
Click to expand...

These shots look good, none of that *******s about the lens not being sharp and the non VC is sharper! It might have been the case at launch of the lens but it has been fixed and if u use the VC or on a canon IS than yes it's worth every extra penny over the non VC model. Keep in mind that a canon 70-200 f/4 costs around £500 and the IS version of it costs an extra £500 so that's £1000 and £500 of it is for the IS.
 
Last edited:
CaptainPenguin said:
Where does this non VC better than the VC come from,I have had the VC version for 6 months now and it is bitingly sharp
Click to expand...

Most early reviews of the vc were not great, it was soft wide open. Side by side reviews showed the non vc to be sharper.

By it appers Tamron got there act together and resolved the issues as they are now quite sharp (mine was any way).

I think Tamron needs to rename it as it will always have a poor name.

Its a good lens for the money, its not as good as the Canon 17-55 f2.8 but its not that far behind.
 
tris101 said:
Its a good lens for the money, its not as good as the Canon 17-55 f2.8 but its not that far behind.
Click to expand...

That seems to be the general opinion of it, it is a cracker of a lens, especially for the price - it's under half the price of the Canon

Certainly one I'm going to have a look at - don't need at 17-50/55 2.8 lens, but for the price they are, it maybe worth getting one...
 
That's the only thing that put me off the Tamron 17-50. I wanted stabilisation but had heard bad things about the sharpness of the VC version.

Maybe time for a rethink as at the moment I'm looking at getting the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM.
 
Steve82 said:
That's the only thing that put me off the Tamron 17-50. I wanted stabilisation but had heard bad things about the sharpness of the VC version.

Maybe time for a rethink as at the moment I'm looking at getting the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM.
Click to expand...

Don't wright it off because of early bad reviews though, do give it a try in a camera shop, you will be surprised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top