Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 ....which one?

Robbo

Robbo

Messages
3,962
Edit My Images
Yes
There are loads of letters after these lenses! anyone know what they mean and which one is rated best?

vc xr Di II ld aspherical

xr di ldn aspherical mk II

xr ld aspherical (IF)

any help? cheers
 
I threw up ! so comfusing !!! :lol:

just browse the tamron site to understand the letters. I think VC was something like image stabilisation .
 
Starastin said:
I threw up ! so comfusing !!! :lol:

just browse the tamron site to understand the letters. I think VC was something like image stabilisation .
Click to expand...

am trying to do online searching but im on the mrs laptop, which is one of those tiny little bloody things and I cant hardly use it! its horrid! lol
 
yes, Tamron site will enlighten you.
I have recently got one of these, £60 it was advertised as faulty, 2 mins fiddling and all was well.
Great lens IMO apart from the noisy AF motor which realistically i would describe as agricultural.

Paul
 
Taztastic said:
yes, Tamron site will enlighten you.
I have recently got one of these, £60 it was advertised as faulty, 2 mins fiddling and all was well.
Great lens IMO apart from the noisy AF motor which realistically i would describe as agricultural.

Paul
Click to expand...

How did you fix it?

I have read a few reviews about them not being to reliable.

Its going to be used for a band that I am working for and dont want it to flop on me half way through
 
It was advertised as giving an error when connected to the camera, I had read about an issue with screws coming loose on the aperture lever, had some knowledge of dismantling them.
So for £60 I thought I would give it a go, I connected the lens, and yes it gave an error, put the camera in manual mode and tried the lens again stopped down and hey presto, it worked. Have taken around 500 shots with it since and it has been flawless so far, reliability is always in the back of my mind.
Always keep my old lenses with me just in case, but it has certainly opened my eyes to third party lenses and the quality that can be achieved, certainly for me anyway.
I would think the sensible route if you are taking shots for a band would be to have a contingency plan anyway, if I go out for the day and it packs up, it's no loss.
 
hmm I did plan on selling my 18-55 IS lens but maybe keep that as a back up, I know its not the best for this kind of stuff, hmmmmmmm.......and I dont fancy paying the 800 pound canon are asking for there 17-50
 
I have an 18-55 IS too, in fact it's for sale as we speak, hope sod's law doesn't get revenge if it sells!!
Good luck with the shoot and look forward to seeing some pics

Paul
 
there are 2 Tamrons 17-50, both with alot of letters behind them.

Basically ignore the letters, they are sort of saying its a great awesome lens.

The only 2 letters you need to keep in mind are VC (vibration control) IS for canon.

The difference between tehse 2 lenses 1 is with VC the other (older 1) is without VC.

For IQ take the non VC one. Their focusing is niosy but they are some real sharp lenses almost as good IQ as the mucho expensivo canon 17-55
 
If you have a quick search on this forum you'll see loads of people impressed with their 17-50, mainly the non-VC version. I too own one and love it, although i found it was slightly pipped by Canon's 17-55mm for focusing speed.
 
Thanks for the info

It's mainly going to be used for the band I shoot at gigs and for portraits.

Would the AF struggle at gigs, or is it not 'that bad'?

Also have you had any problems? I read some reviews it an play up etc, bot sure if I hit some bad reviews on amazon.
 
Robbo said:
Thanks for the info

It's mainly going to be used for the band I shoot at gigs and for portraits.

Would the AF struggle at gigs, or is it not 'that bad'?

Also have you had any problems? I read some reviews it an play up etc, bot sure if I hit some bad reviews on amazon.
Click to expand...

there are thousands of this lens around. Built wise they are not the best (sort of enpar with the kit lens) so the chances that someone is unhappy is pretty high.

The canon one is less common and built wise is great so coupling these things togethr the chances of someone complaining is more remote.


saying all this the best lens for gigs is the inexpensive 50 1.8 imo at least
 
Last edited:
RVW said:
Have you looked at the Sigma 17/50 2.8 ??
Click to expand...

Yea it's around the 600 mark, at that I would rather get the canon secondhad.

I did look at the 50mm but it's going to be very limiting in terms of I won't know how but the venue is going to be or shooting positions/access.

Also the range would be bad for my portraits so trying to kill two birds
 
Robbo said:
Yea it's around the 600 mark, at that I would rather get the canon seconded.
Click to expand...

Hmm me thinking out loud here --does that mean you think the Sigma is inferior to the Canon or even the Tamron? Or is it just you would prefer a Canon?:)
 
No undone think it's inferior at all, I just know or feel more comfortable with the canon that's all.
 
Starastin said:
if you're going to use it for band and portraits I would suggest you get the 28-75mm ;)
Click to expand...

Reason I went for the wider angle is the portraits are going to be home visit/portable kit, so I may need the wider angle depending in house size
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top