Upgrade from Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 non VC

noneforit

noneforit

Messages
1,298
Edit My Images
No
Hi

I currently own a Canon 50d and primary seem to stick with the 17-50mm Tamron for the majority of my shots. It's a great lens and very sharp but two issues I seem to have are that the autofocus is not as quick as i would like and the lack of IS seems to cause me issues when trying to hand hold the camera in lower light.

Without the IS in Lower light, i seem to get more blurry images due to the shutter speed dropping.

I am thinking of an upgrade and my choices seem to be:

Canon 17-55mm F2.8 IS
Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 VC
Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 OS

I have the budget for the Canon but don't like to spend money needlessly.

Does it seem like a worthwhile upgrade?

About 30% of my shots are in the F2.8 to F4 range which kinda put me off the Canon 17-40mm L F4 but I am starting to wonder if this may be the way to go....

Thanks
 
I have the Tamron 17-50mm non VC... and suffer from the same focussing problems as you do. Keep in mind the VC will not help with subject motion.

For the low light shots, where I cannot use long exposures, I went with a couple of fast (f2) primes, and use high ISO if needed.
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
There's only one upgrade to the tamron 17-50mm non VC...

The tamron 17-50mm VC lol.
Click to expand...

I have read reviews that it's not as sharp as the non vc though so I don't want to swap one issue for another?

Is the autofocus quicker?
 
noneforit said:
I have read reviews that it's not as sharp as the non vc though so I don't want to swap one issue for another?

Is the autofocus quicker?
Click to expand...

In my experience the VC is sharper than the nonVC (over a number of examples of both).

AF and build quality are both better as well.
 
I have the VC version all be it in Nikon mount and have no complaints about the sharpness at all.

From what I have read the 17-55 canon is their best non L lens with regards to IQ but build quality is often questioned from reading here.
 
Hmmmm interesting, I may see if the Tamron pops up on here.

It's a shame the Canon is not an L lens but for around £400 second hand, I guess that's to be expected.
 
I had exactly the same issue as you, I had my Tamron 17-50 for several years before I tried the VC version, unfortunately the VC version I tried wasn't nearly as sharp as the Non VC so I bought the Canon 17-55 IS USM.

First things I noticed were that the Canon is much larger and much heavier than the Tamron non VC, it is also much quicker to focus. Sharpness between the non VC and the Canon is pretty much even although there are some subtle differences in the way the lenses render images, especially at larger apertures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top