Tamron 17-50

Jannyfox

Jannyfox

Messages
4,709
Name
Jan
Edit My Images
No
I'm looking for a new lens for landscape to move on from the 'kit' lenses which are all I have at the moment in the shorter focal lengths. The camera is a Canon 550D by the way. I bought the 18-135 with it and have the 18-55 off another, older, camera. I have the Tamron 70-300 but that's just for wildlife. For landscape I'm leaning towards the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD. What I really want to know is, apart from the obvious, is there any difference between the VC version and the non VC version? It would only be used on a tripod so I can't see the point of having VC if that's the only difference between the two versions. It adds significantly to the cost and if I don't need to spend the money on the lens I rather spend it on something else. When I'm out walking, and not carrying the tripod, I use and will continue to use the Canon 18-135 as I need one lens to cover everything from landscape to wildlife. Or alternatively are there any other options I should be considering for around the same price? I don't, unfortunately, have an unlimited budget!
 
I have the non VC version and it pretty much lives on my 7D.
I've never had the VC version, but forum opinion seems to be that the non VC is the sharper of the two.

I don't do landscape, but take a look through my flickr, I expect that 1/2 of the shots are with the 17-50 (exif is there to check).
Hopefully someone with the VC version will be along shortly with other examples.
 
Used to be on my D7000 all the time when I went digi for a bit. I had the non VC version and it was as sharp as a sharp thing.
 
Hi

Since I bought my non vc one that has always been on my d90. I would say look for a sharp non vc one.
 
There has always been a train of thought than the non VC version is the sharper of the two.
I've previouly owned the VC version and I was very happy with level of IQ it produced.
 
No idea between vc and non vc, my non vc is sharp and I bought it a few years back when I used to a bit band photography.
As you already have that range covered all but 1mm on the wide end with your 18-135 would you not better off looking at something wider10-20 for example.
I have puchased 18-135 stm recently as a walk about and the tammy now only gets used for low light
 
I'm not looking for a vastly different focal length at the moment, just something that's going to give better image quality than the kit lenses, ie sharper. As this is specifically for landscape sharpness is important and it seems to be where my images seem to be lacking in comparison with those I see taken with 'better' lenses (I'm happy to be corrected if there could be another reason). Close up I can't fault the 18-135 - I've taken some very good butterfly and dragonfly images with it. It's just for landscape.
 
Jannyfox said:
I'm not looking for a vastly different focal length at the moment, just something that's going to give better image quality than the kit lenses, ie sharper. As this is specifically for landscape sharpness is important and it seems to be where my images seem to be lacking in comparison with those I see taken with 'better' lenses (I'm happy to be corrected if there could be another reason). Close up I can't fault the 18-135 - I've taken some very good butterfly and dragonfly images with it. It's just for landscape.
Click to expand...
Stopped down to about F8 I can't imagine there will be much difference in sharpness between the two.
 
LC2 said:
That could be the issue you are seeing. if you stop down too much, you will get softer images due to diffraction.
Click to expand...

Seems I definitely need to play a bit more with the lenses I have before I commit to another purchase then, not that I was going to rush out and buy one straight away anyway. And if I do decide to go for the Tamron after all it'll be the non VC version. Anything that saves me money I can put towards other things on my wish list....................!
 
I think the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS is also worth consideration and should be in the same price bracket.
 
Jan I am in North Devon, if you are in the area anytime let me know, if I am around you can put my tammy on yours and have look to see what you think
 
eidt - see you are canon user...so post not use lol


otherwise from that I do love my Tamron 17 - 50
 
Last edited:
RKC said:
Jan I am in North Devon, if you are in the area anytime let me know, if I am around you can put my tammy on yours and have look to see what you think
Click to expand...

If I remember when I'm in North Devon next I might take you up on that. It might be a while though (so many places to go, too little time off work, too much 'wrong' weather....)

JDPrism said:
Here is just an interesting read and there is a £50.00 cash back on the Sigma until the 31st of March http://rogersmj.com/2013/06/budget-fast-zoom-lens-tamron-vs-sigma-17-50mm-f2-8/
Click to expand...

Interesting article. Thank you for that. I have used Sigma lenses before back in my 35mm days. Certainly something to think about.
 
I have the sigma and Im happy with it, but dont have the other lenses to compare it with
 
I have the sigma 17-50 non hsm and tamron 17-50 non vc and I have to say the tamron is sharper. I went for the non vc after researching and finding the general consensus was the non vc was alot sharper than the vc version
 
Thanks again guys. It seems I would definitely be wasting money going for the Tamron VC over the non VC, which is what I wanted to confirm. As for Tamron or Sigma.................. I'll be taking some time out to experiment more with what I have before a decision is made.
 
I had the canon 18-55 IS before buying my Tamron 17-50mm Non VC. The reason i bought the Tamron was for its constant f2.8 and ability to take indoor and lowlight photos.

I found the canon to be very sharp stopped down by even 1 stop at any focal length. Before i got rid of the Canon i tried some comparison shots with both lens on Landscape type scenarios (f5.6 and above). The results in terms of sharpness and overall image quality were identical.

It may cost a bit more (or a lot more) but have you considered the 15-85mm IS? Seems to get excellent reviews, offers a wider shot for landscapes and is a decent length for a walkaround lens.
 
cmcm789 said:
I had the canon 18-55 IS before buying my Tamron 17-50mm Non VC. The reason i bought the Tamron was for its constant f2.8 and ability to take indoor and lowlight photos.

I found the canon to be very sharp stopped down by even 1 stop at any focal length. Before i got rid of the Canon i tried some comparison shots with both lens on Landscape type scenarios (f5.6 and above). The results in terms of sharpness and overall image quality were identical.

It may cost a bit more (or a lot more) but have you considered the 15-85mm IS? Seems to get excellent reviews, offers a wider shot for landscapes and is a decent length for a walkaround lens.
Click to expand...

The wide aperture is a selling point for these lenses but of course one I don't need for landscape. I think I may have been stopping down too far so I need to back off and experiment and decide if I really need (rather than want..........!) a new lens. No I hadn't (yet, anyway) considered an 15-85. I think if I was to jump to another lens I still have research to do. The 18-135 will still be my 'walkaround' lens (my idea of walkaround being 15+ miles over Dartmoor photographing landscape, wildlife and everything in between, all had held, so I'm not looking for the ultimate in quality for that, just an all-rounder I can throw in my rucksack. When I go out 'doing landscape' I go to photograph and nothing else, with tripod, filters and two lenses).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top