Tamron SP 17-50 mm for canon?

Lemaildetom

Lemaildetom

Messages
2,919
Name
thomas
Edit My Images
Yes
Sorry their thousand of post like this one but there is so many different lens it's very confusing...

I'm looking for an all rounder lens. At the moment I only have a 10-20 sigma and a 55-250 canon (i'm probably selling my 30mm).

I want something not too expensive and quiet fast. What option would you look or avoid there.
I think there is:
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non VC
Canon equivalent
Sigma equivalent

Ideally if a lens would start at 15-16 that would be a plus but I think all option are more expensive.
Any though?
 
The Sigma, Tamron and Canon lenses are all supposedly very, very good. I have owned 2 copies of the Tamron 17-50 both of which are Non VCs, after choosing not to spend the extra on the Canon 17-55 f2.8. I'm very happy with the lens, the only gripe would be the noisy autofocus and the slightly slower then perfect autofocus speed. I really couldn't ask for much more in terms of image quality and the constant f2.8 is very, very useful.

From previous reading before purchasing the Tamron I concluded with the following:
The best lens is the Canon, but it's not worth twice the price. The Sigma and Tamrons are very, very close but the Tamrons are generally more easily available S/H and a tad cheaper. The Non VC is a little sharper over the VC, but it's a personal choice if you like image stabilisation - personally I do now that I've shot without a flash went travelling and have take a couple of shakey photos.

An alternative is the 15-85 Canon which is meant to be fantastic, although it lacks the fast apeture of the rest.

So in conclusion, go and buy that Tamron in the classifieds as it's super cheap and if you want a Super WA keep yours and it will still be cheaper then owning a single Canon 17-55 f2.8
 
Buy the tamron 17-50mm non vc that is currently in the classifieds. It's a bargain at £150 as they normally go for around £200
 
I have a non vc too and so far I'm happy with it too, very sharp. The one at 150 is a bargain
 
Thanks guys, really appreciate you input. I'll give myself a little thinking and hopefully nobody jump on it first!
 
I also have the non vc one for my Nikon and am very happy with it.
 
I'll just reiterate what others have said: it is a great general-purpose lens and the f2.8 is very useful!
 
for the money they are both great. the vc I pretty noisy mind you if you go for the vc edition
 
thanks for the tip, the tamron in the clasified as been removed so i'll wait a bit see if something turn out again or i'll keep an eye on ebay.
 
aserota said:
The Sigma, Tamron and Canon lenses are all supposedly very, very good. I have owned 2 copies of the Tamron 17-50 both of which are Non VCs, after choosing not to spend the extra on the Canon 17-55 f2.8. I'm very happy with the lens, the only gripe would be the noisy autofocus and the slightly slower then perfect autofocus speed. I really couldn't ask for much more in terms of image quality and the constant f2.8 is very, very useful.

From previous reading before purchasing the Tamron I concluded with the following:
The best lens is the Canon, but it's not worth twice the price. The Sigma and Tamrons are very, very close but the Tamrons are generally more easily available S/H and a tad cheaper. The Non VC is a little sharper over the VC, but it's a personal choice if you like image stabilisation - personally I do now that I've shot without a flash went travelling and have take a couple of shakey photos.

An alternative is the 15-85 Canon which is meant to be fantastic, although it lacks the fast apeture of the rest.

So in conclusion, go and buy that Tamron in the classifieds as it's super cheap and if you want a Super WA keep yours and it will still be cheaper then owning a single Canon 17-55 f2.8
Click to expand...

I would agree with all of this with maybe the exception of the Canon not being worth twice the price of the Tamron. I've owned both the Tamron (non VC) and the Canon and in the end the extra 5mm, the 3-stop IS, the super fast and silent AF and the marginal IQ advantage justifies the Canon's price in my opinion. In particular the IS coupled with the low light focusing capability of a constant f/2.8 aperture is a killer combo when ambient light is in short supply and flash isn't an option.

That said, the Tamron is a great lens, really good value for money and for the price you can understand the compromises. If you don't want to or can't stretch to the Canon then the Tamron isn't a bad fall back at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top