Tamron, 17-50

samems said:
Is the 17-70 a better buy than the Tamron?
Click to expand...

Not in my opinion, I found it little better than the IS kit, but not as good as any of the constant 17/18-50 f2.8 models (it was superior between 51mm and 70mm though ;) )
 
Fantastic lens for its cost and can be very sharp. Its very sharp focusing.

Love my non VC to bits.
 
I've got the VC version though its on a Nikon... I haven't tried the non VC but have tried the Nikon 17-55.

Centre of mine is easily as sharp as the nikon wide open but its a bit disappointing towards the edge of the lens (mostly I don't notice this but in a team photo that I used it the people at the edge of the frame were noticeably very soft compared to anyone else in the image..this was at f/8 so wasn't wide open either).

The VC is pretty weird though I think...takes probably close to a second to stabilise which when you're taking a photo seems to take forever. I mostly shoot with the VC off just to avoid the wait for it to stabilise.

Still glad I went for the VC as I got it for a pretty good price so was nothing between the two but if it got robbed I think I'd go non VC unless there was not much between them price wise.

Again this is all for Nikon but I'd imagine it would be similar for Canon.
 
Ordered eeek :D
 
jimmy83 said:
Thanks again, what camera do you use it with? VC version? Do you have any negatives about it?

Sorry for the questions, hope you don't mind :)
Click to expand...

Sorry Jimmy missed this. I am using it on a d90 and yep its the vc. I dont really have any negatives tbh although focus could be a tad snappier but its quick enough for every day use.I was very surprised how sharp it actually is wide open and like most have read stories that its not as sharp as the older version blah blah bah..Heres a users review from nikonians,although you may need to register to view.
http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcb...157&page=&topic_id=34397&prev_page=show_topic
 
If you cant see it here is the opening post..

For anyone on the fence about whether to buy this DX lens, or splurge for the Nikon 17-55, or settle for the Tam 17-50 with no VC I just wanted to leave a note containing my two cents.

I have owned all three of these lenses and I can confidently say without a doubt the new Tamron with VC is by FAR the superior of the three.

Lighter than the Nikon, with much less flare, just as sharp, if not sharper, even wide open...yes really. Great color and contrast, it does not focus quite as fast as the Nikon but it is nearly so.

Must faster and sharper than the non-VC version, it is a little heavier but not by much. It takes 72mm filters.

The VC is a bit loud, not obnoxiously so, but you do hear it and BOY does it work! I've been able to ripple off shots as slow as 1/2 of a second and one of those 3, one of them almost always comes out sharp. I cannot wait to use this lens on my next visit to an aquarium or a museum!

If you are undecided and looking for a solid mid-range I personally couldn't be happier with mine. I no longer miss my Nikon 17-55 at all and if you gave me a choice between the two I would enthusiastically pick the Tam. Outside of the Nikon 24-70 I do not believe there is a finer mid-range on the market.
Click to expand...
 
From what I have read, the non vc seems to be the better of the 2.
 
samems said:
From what I have read, the non vc seems to be the better of the 2.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of discussion around the forum, with plenty of people who actually own the lenses who have shared their thoughts with regard to sharpness.

Most people who declare the non VC to be sharper seem to base their observation on what they have read on the internet.

As I said in the other thread, from personal experience, that either I was incredibly unlucky and had 3 separate non VC Tamron's that were all underperforming or the VC model I have is better than average as it is sharper with better AF performance than any of the 3 non VC's.

(or of course, just maybe the VC model is a good performer like a lot of those who actually own one seem to think ;) ).
 
Is the Tamron a lens that one would consider ditching a 50mm prime for? If one had to make a choice?
 
samems said:
Is the Tamron a lens that one would consider ditching a 50mm prime for? If one had to make a choice?
Click to expand...

Yes, I actually sold my 50mm when I bought my previous non VC Tamron. For most narrow DOF shots, the Tamron does well with better bokeh than the 50mm. f1.8 can also have too narrow a DOF for a lot of things (I don't like portraits at f1.8 as too little is in focus).

I actually also didn't like the build of the 50mm mk2 as the inner barrel is a weak point, I broke one and bought a Mk1 some years ago (which is the lens I sold a few months ago).

I also think the 50 is a bad focal length on crop, it's too long as an all purpose lens to walk around with, and too delicate to throw in a camera bag just in case you want to use it.
 
Last edited:
I liked my non VC 17-50 tamron, on my 40D and it could be very sharp indeed
but I missed a couple of vital shots because it just didn't focus as well as the canon lenses I've had
traded in eventually as it wound me up. nice lens for the price though, for pixel peeping there wasn't a great deal of difference between the tamron and canon tbh
 
15-85 would prob be a better bet even though it doesn't have a lower f point.
 
DizMatt said:
I liked my non VC 17-50 tamron, on my 40D and it could be very sharp indeed
but I missed a couple of vital shots because it just didn't focus as well as the canon lenses I've had
traded in eventually as it wound me up. nice lens for the price though, for pixel peeping there wasn't a great deal of difference between the tamron and canon tbh
Click to expand...

Interested to hear what Canon lens you went for...
 
I've finally decided to go for the vc, it's slightly heavier which I would actually prefer, I've looked at a billion images taken with vc/non vc and having the Benefit of vc seems worth it, I'm going to go to a shop and try both just to be 100% sure before I hand over my money,
 
Non VC I would go for. What people have said about the VC being slower is that true? This is the question that I have about it.
 
Hi...dont know if this will help but I'll be puting mine up for sale on here prob tomorrow...used for my 50D...

(For sale as I bought a 5D Classic...I now use a 24-105L on my 5D...and the 70-200L on the 50D)

Non-VC and Ill be taking a few photos...so Ill take a few photos and drop them on here as well as the For Sale Section...

I must admit...I loved the lens...great pics...nice and fast to focus...but having not tried the VC I cannot comment on a comparison...(when I was buying the non-VC did review better in all the web research I done than the VC version) the only reason I changed is that my new setup is practicable for a 2 camera shoot with no lens changes and max focal length range coverage...

Hope this and the photos help...

STEVIER
 
samems said:
Non VC I would go for. What people have said about the VC being slower is that true? This is the question that I have about it.
Click to expand...

Well go for the non vc and go take some pics with it rather than talking about one on a forum. Who said that the vc was slower than the non vc?
 
samems said:
Non VC I would go for. What people have said about the VC being slower is that true? This is the question that I have about it.
Click to expand...

are you talking about AF speed? if so, I dont know which people you spoke to but the VC is faster and better at AF than any of the non VC one's I had. Its even smoother at focussing in MF mode.
 
Heard that you have to wait for the VC to kick in before a shot can be taken?
 
samems said:
Heard that you have to wait for the VC to kick in before a shot can be taken?
Click to expand...

The VC works in almost the exact method and time as my 55-250IS.

Push shutter button half way, the image jumps once as the gyro spins up and it's working.
 
i don't think anyone talked about AF speed on VC and non VC. They both AF pretty much the same when i tried it out (they same speed as AFS lens to me but just abit of noise thats all).

when i tried the VC the VC is decent and it does the job well but it takes a sec or 2 to settle before you can snap a shot so that kinda put me off to buy the non VC version, plus the non VC version i tried is a tad sharper then the VC version (possibly bad VC copy i tried).

If you can live with the VC (or turn it off ..... and use it when needed) then is a good buy.
 
Go and try one and see how YOU like it, not what you have heard about it. I would say the vc is as quick as my old 28-135 and lumix 14-45 m4/3 lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top