T3i 18-55 Kit Lens Replacement - Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 Good Choice?

nigelbb said:
When I bought my Canon 600D(T3i) I went cheap & bought the Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 VC instead of the Canon 17-55mm F/2.8 IS as it was half the price of the Canon lens. I returned the Tamron the next day as it was so inferior to a decent Canon lens. The IS was really noisy, the AF was slow, the focus & zoom rings rotate the wrong way, you need to slide the switch from AF to MF when manually focusing or you fight the AF motor. There were probably other things that bugged me that I don't recall now but the Canon lens is just so much better that it is easily worth the money even if it did cost more than the camera.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the opinion.

Do you find the image stabilization will generally add noise to video? I wasn't aware of that. However, I show some video last night using the kit lens and I turned on stabilization because I was doing camera moves by hand. The video had so much noise, and I was very surprised by that. I am not sure what ISO I had the camera at but I rarely go over 1600.
 
Last edited:
J Davis said:
Hey Ken, if you're only shooting video and have no need for autofocus, get the tamron. If you are going to shoot stills for clients you need to double check the tamron as many copies of this lens will miss focus, usually by focusing in front of where they should. This then leads to repeatedly soft images, especially when trying to hit infinity focus on a wide shot. Although the canon 17-55/2.8 is double the price you end up getting what you paid for, especially when it comes to AF
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info Jhoe! I bought the camera for video but I find that I am enjoying shooting stills quite a bit. I don't think I'll be shooting photos for pay except as maybe an add-on to a video shoot. (But who knows, that may change.) This camera is more for personal use. However, this focus issue is news to me, and I'll look into it further.

Thanks,

Ken
 
Kenneth Fisher said:
Thanks for the info Jhoe! I bought the camera for video but I find that I am enjoying shooting stills quite a bit. I don't think I'll be shooting photos for pay except as maybe an add-on to a video shoot. (But who knows, that may change.) This camera is more for personal use. However, this focus issue is news to me, and I'll look into it further.

Thanks,

Ken
Click to expand...

stop by and visit if you want to try my canon 17-55/2.8
 
The fact that the Tamron focus & zoom rings work the wrong way round was the absolute deal breaker for me as every other lens I own is a Canon & zooms & focuses the correct way. It would be all too confusing especially in the heat of the moment shooting events.
 
nigelbb said:
The fact that the Tamron focus & zoom rings work the wrong way round was the absolute deal breaker for me as every other lens I own is a Canon & zooms & focuses the correct way. It would be all too confusing especially in the heat of the moment shooting events.
Click to expand...

Maybe the Tamron is made for use in Australia? :cheesy:
 
I just bought the Tamron and I'm so pleased with it I'm selling my Canon 50mm F1.4. I was going to get a set of Canon primes but with my Tokina the Tamron gives me the range I need after the crop factor of the 7D.

The 50mm was my goto lens but the Tamron hasn't come off since I got it. We were shooting a low budget feature this summer and I spent so much time in the heat switching lenses and sweating on them that I thought I'd like to try a zoom.

The image quality is great for video. I can always rent a set of CP.2s if I want to take that to an extreme but the Tokina 11-16mm and the Tamron (non VC) 17-50mm work great together for my purposes, (student films, shorts, commercials, music video).

The auto focus is slow, I use the manual ring. It's got a nice throw. It's noisy too, but then again I don't use it.

The f2.8 throughout the range is great and makes this lens useful.
 
I also like the fact that my shots over the range are going to match each other. I used a set of Canon primes on a short and although they covered the range they each had a different "look" and in post I didn't like how one of them looked with the others but it was "in the can" so what can you do? The CP.2s match through the range of focal lengths but then they're engineered as a set.
 
WhiteMonkey said:
The CP.2s match through the range of focal lengths but then they're engineered as a set.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that would be my conclusion too, but it depends on how demanding you are; check this review (from fellow forum member Timur Civan) on the original CPs:
http://timurcivan.blogspot.com/2011/07/examination-of-lenses-carl-zeiss.html

anyway, I'm glad you like the tamron, but I'd keep the 50mm: the tamron is great, but two stops slower, not as sharp at the long end as that canon, and with much worse bokeh
alternatively, you can trade it for the samyang 85mm f/1.4, which is absolutely amazing (comparable to the canon 85mm f/1.2L or the zeiss 85mm f/1.4) and would give you more range
http://www.similaar.com/foto/equipment/us_lensc.html#samyang
 
Hey guys, going off topic on the thread I started - I've taken a bunch of Thanksgiving pics in RAW format. Mostly with my 50mm, but also some with the kit lens so I can shoot wide for table shots etc.

I'm terrible. I open up the 50mm pretty wide because the light is very subdued, but I #*^@!-up the focus often. The thing is, many of the shots look great when I review on the built-in LCD, but when I get to Photoshop, I find that the "plane of focus" (terminology?) is different from what I saw in the camera. By the way, I've mostly been shooting using the LCD screen, not the optical viewfinder. I have bad knees so it makes it much easier to move the camera down to hip-level rather than get low.

When I shoot with the kit lens, I have to push the ISO pretty high and I find that the image is really noisy.

Is it just practice? Or where can I find some info on how to better balance f-stop, iso, shutter, etc to improve? Any threads to look at? Do you think the book "understanding exposure" is a good learning source?

Seriously, I am blowing 75% of my shots. I expect a significant number of photos to not come out, that's why I shoot a lot of pictures. But I would like to have a ratio of acceptable use shots closer to 50%.

Lastly, what software do you like to use to quickly review CR2 files? I'm on Windows.
 
* best option: use 10x magnification for manual focusing
* second best: use autofocus (if your camera has microadjustment)
* third best: tie between "install magic lantern and use focus peaking" and "use autofocus (if your camera doesn't have microadjustment)"

edit: lots more here:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/tuten/510.html
(and a lot, lot more on the links at the end of that page)
 
Hey Norman, your site looks like a great resource. I had already come across it before we started corresponding here. I plan to spend a lot of time there learning!

And I really do need to learn, and I think I will do that before I go off buying more lenses. I was at a gathering this evening showing off my baby boy to his godparents, and I blew about 80% of the shots! :cry: (They looked great in the LCD display and through the viewfinder while I was shooting them.)

Funny thing is, it seems that my photos were in generally in much better focus before I switched to RAW. Is there anything to that?
 
I've now looked at some of the photos where it looks like I blew the focus and it seems that they look a lot sharper on smaller screen or windows that are sized down. That would explain why some of these photos looked so good when I shot and/or reviewed them on the LCD monitor of the t3i.

I am going to try some down-rezzing to see if that helps as well.
 
most of the stuff on my site was created for my own use, or for saving me the time of explaining stuff over and over to friends and family; I'm glad others find it useful too

it is not easy to gauge focus if all you're seen is a small res image; I always use the 10x focus assist

RAW doesn't affect focus in any way; but: using a lower sharpness setting when you develop the pictures on your PC may make them softer in general; it has to be an active decision, though (DPP keeps the sharpness setting you shot with)
 
Well today was beautiful in Manhattan, so I went out with the family and took 100+ shots. I probably was about 70% on target.

I'm probably getting a little better but I have to believe the abundance of light made a big difference.

However, I do have to work on positioning, shutter, and some other settings to deal with the sun and other situations.
 
NormanBates said:
I'm glad you like the tamron, but I'd keep the 50mm: the tamron is great, but two stops slower, not as sharp at the long end as that canon, and with much worse bokeh
alternatively, you can trade it for the samyang 85mm f/1.4, which is absolutely amazing (comparable to the canon 85mm f/1.2L or the zeiss 85mm f/1.4) and would give you more range
Click to expand...

I bought the 50mm f1.4 as the first of a set of Canon lenses. I've changed my mind since then about building a set of Canons. It's a great lens and your right about the bokeh.

I do need something in the 85mm range, my 135mm prime is more like 200mm with the crop factor but again I'm down with the Tamron and my Tokina unless the producer wants to rent a set of lenses. Really I want my money invested in a good camera back. I bought a 7D and I like having 11-50mm the two APS-C lenses I bought have without too much of an investment. They make shooting very flexible. We shoot low-budget shorts and features with this setup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top