Anyone use a Tamron 17-50mm?

S

sublimesnfu

Well-known member
I was wondering if anyone has used the Tamron 17-50 and what there thoughts on it were? I can get a pretty good deal on one right now. I mainly shoot with a Nikon 24mm and 50mm on my T2i right now so I would be able to carry just one lens with me most of the time.

Thanks
 
I use it for the 7D. Great lens. I'm not really a technical guy to explain everything though if you want to get into great detail. :-(
 
I've got one and seems pretty good... was my only lens until I got the Tokina 11-16.. so I've got nothing else to compare it to...

Cheers
 
They make it with and without VC (=IS). The lenses this is usually up against are the Tokina 16-50 and the Canon 17-55 (both 2.8 as well). It is really a matter of personal preference. If you have the money, you may want to get the canon, if you want to spend less and don't need VC/IS, the Tokina may be better for it's big meaty focus ring. You should compare hands on before buying.... and if you plan on getting a 5Diii when they launch next year (rumored) you may want to go for the 17-40 F4L instead (my choice).
 
Cool, I don't need the stabilization, and as far as what my next cam will be is anyone's guess (scarlet, another DSLR, AF100) who knows. I would love the Tokina but with the Tamaron I'm looking at a really good deal :-).

Thanks for the feedback, time to head to the ATM :-D
 
The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (I have the non-VC) is terrific for both still and video. The only negative I can think of is that the focus throw is a bit short for manual focusing, but I've never had a problem with that. Some people might though.
 
Lez said:
I've got one and seems pretty good... was my only lens until I got the Tokina 11-16.. so I've got nothing else to compare it to...

Cheers
Click to expand...

I originally got both the tamron(VC) and tokina 11-16mm for my T2i. All was stolen and I replaced it with a 7D and bought both lenses again. For the money they are a great value. Next lens purchase might be the 50-150mm 2.8 Sigma. Anyone hear anything good or bad about it? With all three lenses it would cover a pretty good range.
 
I have the non-VC and love it. There are three main differences between it and the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS: IS, USM, and $650.
 
i got one after being sick of switching prime lenses all the time. The VC works quite well, makes my handheld footage quite usuable which is handy when i want to travel light.
The focus ring is rubbish though. Impossible to make smooth small distance focal changes as the ring feels like plastic rubbing on plastic compared to my super takumar prime lens that felt like butter.
 
I bought 2 VC's from B&H so I was sure I didn't have a lemon. Despite many good reviews here and elsewhere I returned both and spent more money on a Canon 17-55 which I found noticeably sharper. I have an old Tokina/Nikon 28-70 f2.6 with a nikon>Canon adapter that I also found to be sharper. That was my experience.
 
I'm happy w/ my VC copy. I use it wide open all the time for video and stills, and am happy with the sharpness. The short focus throw can be a pain, but I've rigged up a poor-boy's follow-focus (pipe clamp and aluminum binding post) that's good for running-and-gunning. The VC steadies out the footage when I'm hand-holding and the focal range makes it good "walkabout" lens.
 
The Tamron VC's did not do well compared to the non vc version in resolution tests... which is disappointing.

I have the non vc version and it is very good in terms of sharpness. It worked great until a couple of weeks ago when I got a dreaded Erro message - clean contact - which did not go away no matter what I did.

Overall, if you can swing it, get the Canon version. The IS is more valuable than you think when it comes to video.
 
I've seen some bad examples of test shots taken with the VC version. I've also seen some good tack sharp examples so its a bit of a lottery when you get one. Lucky for me, I got a good copy. although getting tack sharp results involves minute adjustment of the horrible focus wheel.
 
I have the non-VC version and it comes in handy alot. That and the Tokina 11-16 are my only zooms and I think they're both invaluable for shooting video. It seems like good primes are hard to come by in the sub-50mm focal length so if you think about it, you're getting a 20mm 2.8, a 28mm 2.8, and a 35mm 2.8 all in one lens (and then some). Pretty good for that price point. Lens holds up really well at those focal lenths too. It's a little "fishy" at 17, but definitely usuable. I like to switch over to the Tokina when I get that wide anyways.

The only other lens worth looking into (IMO) under $500 is the Sigma 30mm. I'm seriously considering buying it but don't like how it doesn't work on full-frame cameras. I shoot on the 7d but with 2 non-compatable lenses already I'd like to start future-proofing my collection a bit more.

One thing to note is that the rings on it move the opposite way of Canon brand lenses. This doesn't affect anything but it can get confusing if you're not used to it.
 
Edmond Dantes said:
I'm seriously considering buying it but don't like how it doesn't work on full-frame cameras. I shoot on the 7d but with 2 non-compatable lenses already I'd like to start future-proofing my collection a bit more.
Click to expand...

Hey Edmond,

i'd say don't worry about future proofing too much. you can always sell your crop lenses for just a little under retail prices.

i think sigma has an attractive collection of fast, prime lenses for crop cameras.

20 1.8, 24 1.8, 28 1.8, 30 1.4 link

two more to top it off:
50 1.4 85 1.4 link

and even a few fish-eye lenses: link.


the 85mm 1.4 isn't out yet, but looks promising
 
Lenilenapi said:
I bought 2 VC's from B&H so I was sure I didn't have a lemon. Despite many good reviews here and elsewhere I returned both and spent more money on a Canon 17-55 which I found noticeably sharper. I have an old Tokina/Nikon 28-70 f2.6 with a nikon>Canon adapter that I also found to be sharper. That was my experience.
Click to expand...

For what its worth, I've bought a lot of sigma and tamron lenses over the years, and have never been as impressed with the image quality compared to Canon L series lens. You get what you pay for I guess.
 
Man that video looks great! I do really like the idea of having another really fast prime. I have the 50 1.4 and the slightly slower 85 1.8 and they're both awesome. The 2 lenses left on my wish list are either the Sigma 30 1.4 or the Canon 135 2.0. Don't ask me why I would need the 135. It's so hard to get a steady shot on a lens that long but I love it so much for stills and tripod use. Anyways, the 17-50 Tamron is nice, but probably not as nice as a Canon that goes for twice as much. I've actually never used a Canon zoom before. I'm sure they're great, but the Tamron looks great for me!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top