Tamron 17-50mm, 17-50mm VC or 28-75mm

D

Donki

Messages
1,178
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
No
Ok guys,

Having just sold my 17-85mm I am looking for sumthing as a walk about lens to compliment my Canon 10-22mm, sold the 17-85mm as I was a wider apperture anyone got experience of the above?

Couple o questions I have,

Is the 28-75mm as sharp as the 17-50mm (non VC)? And how noisey is the AF?

Is the bad press around the 17-50mm VC version justified or is it just a sharp as the non VC.

Thanks.
 
I've got the non VC 17-50, its razor sharp and the autofocus isnt that noisy, remember the canon USM is silent, this is just a quiet brief whine.
The tamrons are excellent lenses, even if you forget the cheap price, i'd rather have an F2.8 tamron than the equivalent sigma or slower canon lens with IS.
 
Cheers Ian,

I was all set on the 17-50mm, then seen a good deal for the VC version and also wondered about the 28-75mm as I have the 10-22mm.

Anyone else?
 
The only issue with the Tamrons is they are VERY plasticky. I had one for a few weeks and I felt I would break it every time I used it. It felt like the 18-55 kit lens (in fact almost worse) and for a £200+ lens that's a little annoying.:)
 
Amp34 said:
The only issue with the Tamrons is they are VERY plasticky. I had one for a few weeks and I felt I would break it every time I used it. It felt like the 18-55 kit lens (in fact almost worse) and for a £200+ lens that's a little annoying.:)
Click to expand...

I dont agree with that at all. My 17-50 feels solid, a completely different league to the kit lens thats for sure.
 
CSB said:
I dont agree with that at all. My 17-50 feels solid, a completely different league to the kit lens thats for sure.
Click to expand...

i tend to agree with amp on the plastickyness. my tamron felt plasticky too compared to all the sigmas i have owned. It wsn't as bad as the kit but nothing like the sigmas or canons.

As a lens though it was good.
 
Amp34 said:
The only issue with the Tamrons is they are VERY plasticky. I had one for a few weeks and I felt I would break it every time I used it. It felt like the 18-55 kit lens (in fact almost worse) and for a £200+ lens that's a little annoying.:)
Click to expand...

Another disagree here too, not plasticky at all, feels solid and performs great. It is definately NOT like a kit lens which has a plastic mount, Tamron is metal.
 
2 people say it is plasticky, 2 people say it isn't. But, who's right?


there's only one way to find out ............


FIGHT!!

Although I think it depends on what you are comparing it to. Compare it to the kit, yes better. Compare it to a sigma or a canon - no, bit plasticky. Didn't bother me though, the glass inside still worked
 
joescrivens said:
2 people say it is plasticky, 2 people say it isn't. But, who's right?


there's only one way to find out ............


FIGHT!!
Click to expand...

Ill jion the ones who say not too plasticky... granted its plastic but of superior quality to the kit....

How to judge? Im pretty positive if I had to throw it at someones head it would hurt him plenty
 
CSB said:
I dont agree with that at all. My 17-50 feels solid, a completely different league to the kit lens thats for sure.
Click to expand...

Taztastic said:
Another disagree here too, not plasticky at all, feels solid and performs great. It is definately NOT like a kit lens which has a plastic mount, Tamron is metal.
Click to expand...

P-Chan said:
Ill jion the ones who say not too plasticky... granted its plastic but of superior quality to the kit....

How to judge? Im pretty positive if I had to throw it at someones head it would hurt him plenty
Click to expand...


+1 it's not cheapo build, has a metal mount and feels solid with a positive zoom ring, completely different to the cheaper canon's.
 
P-Chan said:
Ill jion the ones who say not too plasticky... granted its plastic but of superior quality to the kit....

How to judge? Im pretty positive if I had to throw it at someones head it would hurt him plenty
Click to expand...

lol, you could say that about a brick too - doesn't mean it's not a cheap brick!!

I guess when I compared it to every other £300ish lens I have owned it feels a lot cheaper, particularly against my sigma 30mm and 50mm. It didn't feel like it would break or anything, just a bit cheap and nasty to touch. Still a good lens though!
 
OK OK OK OK!!!! I guess its personal preference, I have owend sigmas before but never a Tamron so I wont know till I get my grubby paws on it.

So you would recommend the 17-50mm over the 28-75mm, is the VC one up to the sharpness of the non VC, Gordan seems to think so anyone else? I have just heard stories about it being not as good as the standard model?
 
joescrivens said:
2 people say it is plasticky, 2 people say it isn't. But, who's right?


there's only one way to find out ............


FIGHT!!

Although I think it depends on what you are comparing it to. Compare it to the kit, yes better. Compare it to a sigma or a canon - no, bit plasticky. Didn't bother me though, the glass inside still worked
Click to expand...

This is what I was just going to ask. :LOL:

I'm comparing it to L and equivilent lenses, which I guess is wrong, however I did replace a Sigma EX lens with the Tamron so I'd suggest it should be comparable.

If upgrading from a kit lens then the idea of build quality is going to be different.:)

Having said that I probably went a bit overboard with the worse than kit lens bit, it was better than the kit lens, and well built, just very plasticky. Most of my lenses I feel I can bash around a bit (not that I do) but the Tamron always gave me the feeling that if I looked at it funnily it would crack/fall apart.:LOL:
 
Last edited:
The non VC is supposed to be the best optically so if you aren't too bothered about IS/VC then go for that.:)
 
You don't say what your budget is so is the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 is out of range at around £650? I bought one of these last month to compliment my Canon 10-22mm and I think it is superb. It also comes with a lens hood, case and a 3 year UK warranty.
 
Hi guys thanks for all the advice, budget is £250 MAX used. Can defo get the 17-50mm and the 28-75mm under that, if the optical qaulity on the VC isn't as good as the non VC I will rule it right out, can anyone confirm this for fact?
 
The Pielander said:
You don't say what your budget is so is the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 is out of range at around £650? I bought one of these last month to compliment my Canon 10-22mm and I think it is superb. It also comes with a lens hood, case and a 3 year UK warranty.
Click to expand...

£650? wow they saw you coming!

£594 at Warehouse express in stock and £520 at RGB photo (stock or not I don't know)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top