Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC and Canon 50D

[hashcake]

I’ve been considering buying the non VC version of this lens for sometime but when I heard about the new version, I decided to wait for some reviews.
So far the reviews of the Nikon version have been very good so hopefully the same will be true for the Canon version.
I have ruled out the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 the price difference and the comparison of shots I’ve seen with the non VC Tamron don’t seem to justify the high price.
If anyone who has used both lenses can convince me, I am all ears?

I’ve also been considering upgrading my 40D to a 50D as these are now going for a realistic 2nd hand price.
I’ve ready plenty of comparisons between the 2 bodies and I thought that there wouldn’t be much point.
I know a lot of people say that megapixels are not everything but a post in a thread by CT has got me thinking.
He posted sample photos of a close cropped photo taken on a 40D, 50D and 7D.
The difference in photo quality on each newer model was certainly noticeable and the 50D started looking like it might be a worthy upgrade.
However, I believe the photos were taken with an L lens somewhere around 300mm.
So taken this into consideration I’m wondering if I see much of a gain on a cropped photo with my Tamron @ 270mm?
The possibility of being able to do a tighter crop on an animal and increased image quality is very appealing.
I know I could get a far better L quality lens with a longer range but for the time being, the cost puts me off and it wouldn't get a lot of use as my Tamron 18-270mm VC suits my needs fine for now.
I don’t devote a lot of time seeking out wildlife as I just don’t have the patience but if I know where to look without too much effort, then fine.

What do you think?

 

[Nifkin]

I’ve been considering buying the non VC version of this lens for sometime but when I heard about the new version, I decided to wait for some reviews.
So far the reviews of the Nikon version have been very good so hopefully the same will be true for the Canon version.
I have ruled out the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 the price difference and the comparison of shots I’ve seen with the non VC Tamron don’t seem to justify the high price.
If anyone who has used both lenses can convince me, I am all ears?

I'm with you on the lens front; am very interested in upgrading to the VC version of the lens I've already got if the IQ is as good. I contacted Intro 2020 this morning (they're the official Tamron distributors to the UK) and they told me they had no news on when the Canon version of the 17-50 VC was going to be released, and to check back with them in a couple of weeks. Does anybody know the usual time lag between Nikon and Canon versions in situations like this?

 

[hashcake]

I'm with you on the lens front; am very interested in upgrading to the VC version of the lens I've already got if the IQ is as good. I contacted Intro 2020 this morning (they're the official Tamron distributors to the UK) and they told me they had no news on when the Canon version of the 17-50 VC was going to be released, and to check back with them in a couple of weeks. Does anybody know the usual time lag between Nikon and Canon versions in situations like this?

I also called Intro 2020 yesterday and I was told 2-4 weeks.
As the Canon version was released in Japan on the 29th October, hopefully it will now be in mass production.
I've tried finding out how long it took for the Nikon version to be released worldwide after it's release in Japan but I've found nothing.

 

[jnO]

Just to support the Tamron choice as well.
I was considering a 17-55 and simply could not justify the expense. If the 17-50 VC is optically as good as the current edition then it's a no brainer for me.

 

[HoppyUK]

I’ve been considering buying the non VC version of this lens for sometime but when I heard about the new version, I decided to wait for some reviews.
So far the reviews of the Nikon version have been very good so hopefully the same will be true for the Canon version.
I have ruled out the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 the price difference and the comparison of shots I’ve seen with the non VC Tamron don’t seem to justify the high price.
If anyone who has used both lenses can convince me, I am all ears?

I’ve also been considering upgrading my 40D to a 50D as these are now going for a realistic 2nd hand price.
I’ve ready plenty of comparisons between the 2 bodies and I thought that there wouldn’t be much point.
I know a lot of people say that megapixels are not everything but a post in a thread by CT has got me thinking.
He posted sample photos of a close cropped photo taken on a 40D, 50D and 7D.
The difference in photo quality on each newer model was certainly noticeable and the 50D started looking like it might be a worthy upgrade.
However, I believe the photos were taken with an L lens somewhere around 300mm.
So taken this into consideration I’m wondering if I see much of a gain on a cropped photo with my Tamron @ 270mm?
The possibility of being able to do a tighter crop on an animal and increased image quality is very appealing.
I know I could get a far better L quality lens with a longer range but for the time being, the cost puts me off and it wouldn't get a lot of use as my Tamron 18-270mm VC suits my needs fine for now.
I don’t devote a lot of time seeking out wildlife as I just don’t have the patience but if I know where to look without too much effort, then fine.

What do you think?

VC version of the 17-50 2.8 is completely different to the non-VC design, but I've no doubt it will still be pretty good.

The cropping trick with a 50D is entirely dependent on the resolving power of the lens. It's a tough call and only the best lenses will be able to do it with any degree of success - ie preferably long Canon L primes of £1k-plus.

That rules out your Tamron 18-270 I'm afraid. It will perform little better on a 50D in this respect than it does on your current 40D. It will be barely noticeable in practise.

It has to be said that this is a bit of a cheat technique. Not as good as using a pukka longer lens obviously, which costs mega-money, but maybe better than a teleconverter. It's a workaround alternative that might just work IF you have a really sharp lens on board.

 

[hashcake]

Thanks Hoppy, you've comfirmed my suspicions with regard to the lens scenario.
I'm not going upgrade the body for the sake it as it would pointless unless there was a significant gain.
I'll sit back and wait until my photography skills have improved then consider investing in better glass and a new body.