Tamron 17-50 VC
- Thread starter miloca
- Start date
badhairdude
Member
was looking at ebay for some tamron 17-50 vc, and i found some pretty surprisingly low prices.
the feedback looks legit, but i was wondering if you guys spot anything wrong with it?
when it says canon mount, does that mean there's an adapter? or does it just directly mount onto the camera.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Tamron-17-50mm-..._Photographic_Accessories&hash=item19bde3b4ef
the feedback looks legit, but i was wondering if you guys spot anything wrong with it?
when it says canon mount, does that mean there's an adapter? or does it just directly mount onto the camera.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Tamron-17-50mm-..._Photographic_Accessories&hash=item19bde3b4ef
ROCKMORE
Veteran
Third party lenses are made with different mounts for Nikon, Canon etc.
I was also looking at the Tamron 17-50mm. It looked pretty good, but can't get passed the VC version not being as sharp as the non VC version. I put the non VC lens on my 550D at the dealer, shot some tests and put them up on my computer. It was a nice lens, but I gotta say I wasn't blown away by the sharpness at 2.8. Just Ok. I also saw a very soft clip on another thread here on DVX last week, along with some reports of unsatisfied buyers returning them, so be sure this lens is what you really need before you spend your cash. I got the 50mm 1.8 for $99 bucks and neither Tamron will compete with it at 50mm at 2.8 for sharpness.
You can compare on the link below. Also compare to the Canon 50mm 1.8 at 2.8 and you'll see the difference in sharpness
1st link is Tamron VC at 50 vs Canon 50mm 1.8 at 2.8
2nd link are the 2 Tamrons side by side.
Buy sharp lenses and you will never want to sell them.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=679&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=2
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
Last edited:
ROCKMORE
Veteran
It is completely fair to compare a $100 prime lens that is sharper then a $500 or $1000 zoom lens. I think everybody should know that fact.
I was surprised and happy to learn that the cheap little 50mm 1.8 in my bag stands up to most any lens out there.
The point is to achieve the sharpest image possible and to know what the options are. We're all here to learn and know the difference, so we can make the best lens selection, and find the great deals out there that produce amazing images while also affordable.
Some zooms are a good trade off, like the 17-40 L. or 16-35mmL. They are as sharp as the 20mm 2.8 prime and there are few other prime choices wider than 20mm, but in the mid range a Canon 28mm 2.8 for only $200 is another way to go for an ultra sharp image on a limited budget and a lens I will be sure to pick up on an impulse buy, just like I did with the 50mm 1.8.
DVXuser is a great resource for hands on information about equipment. I have made ALL my choices based on what I've learned here over the past year. Thanks to everyone.
Last edited:
I disagree with this statement 100% completely. First of all, all of these lenses produce a sharp image. Second Primes generally produce a nicer one but it's not all about sharpness.
Case in point doing a live even I need a Zoom lens, a 50 mm 1.8 would basically kill me. If I were also indoors doing a scene using a 50mm is not the most ideal situation. Finally I do music videos and when I want full body shots you can forget about dong that with a 50mm. You want to go handheld, forget about it. Car mount, forget about it and their are MANY more times that a zoom lens would benefit me over a 50mm prime.
Sharpness is NOT everything
J Davis
Veteran
Rockmore's second link is the interesting one, not the link comparing the prime.
Buyers should also be aware of quality control issues with tamrons. One tamron is not necessarily as good as another copy of the same lens.
For those that cannot afford VC, smoothcam is your friend
(I miss shake)
Buyers should also be aware of quality control issues with tamrons. One tamron is not necessarily as good as another copy of the same lens.
For those that cannot afford VC, smoothcam is your friend
(I miss shake)
ROCKMORE
Veteran
I agree, sharpness is not everything, but almost, aside from high resolution and low CA.
Using shallow DOF to create softness is another issue. This is a technique of choice and not the cause of limitations due to less than sharp lenses.
My post wasn't all about the 50 1.8. I used that to make a point about having a benchmark to compare other lenses to. It this case, a sharp and relatively fast lens everybody can afford.
Some zoom lenses have very poor sharpness and contrast at 50mm. The Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 VC has that flaw.
You know, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what's a good investment for sharp glass. Nothing personal about shooting style, only the facts about the hardware.
Last edited:
ROCKMORE
Veteran
This may be old news to someone with experience, but it's a good lesson for new members on this site who are looking to make good lens selections and have little experience and less cash.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
Last edited:
Please show me any lens that is sharper than the 50mm 1.8 other than I guess the different f stop version of the same lens?
Sure when your filming a chart that sticks out, but on nature and peoples faces it's not that bad. I use the kit lens and have gotten a lot of great shots from it. To anyone looking to buy the VC version of the 17-50 don't put to much emphasis into these charts
ROCKMORE
Veteran
That's exactly right. The charts are just a clinical examination of the performance of the lens shooting a flat plane. The real world of photography is not like that. If you are shooting a portrait in the center of the frame where the lens is sharp it doesn't really matter that the corners get soft.
In the case of the Tamron 17-50 the design of the elements makes it really hard for the edges of the lens to focus on the same flat plane as the center, so in that lenses case a flat chart doesn't tell the whole story about what great images it can produce.
This is why it is very important to understand the design and behavior of a lens before you invest in it. I was about to buy the 17-50mm 2.8 non VC myself last week because it is not expensive and looked much sharper than the 18-55 kit lens I have, but didn't because I realized the benefit of the IS in my 18-55 kit lens may produce better hand held shots controlling movement, weighed against the sharper faster 17-50.
My point is, study your lenses and know them before buying them, look for the flaws and you won't be disappointed.
As far as what is a sharper 50mm lens than the 50mm f1.8 here are a few.
The new Planar T* 1,4/50 ZF went even further: It reached 320 lp/mm in the aperture range from f/5.6 to f/2.8, and 250 lp/mm at f/2.
What we are saying is this: Carl Zeiss lenses are capable of capturing enormous amounts of information, if required, and will not be the limiting factor in the imaging process. Knowing that the lens you are using is the strongest link in the chain always inspires confidence, and may be critically important in some cases.
Last edited: