Reading mode: Light Dark

Tamron 17-50: Why is it outperforming Canon 17-40L and 24-105L?

Go to last post
U

uwlaw

New member
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
San Francisco Bay Area, US
As a recent convert from film to digital (Canon 30D), I spent a ridiculous amount of time researching online in an effort to find the best walk-around lens for a 1.6 crop camera. Yes, I know I’m not alone in this regard. I eventually settled on the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. But after reading so much about “L” glass in this and other forums, I decided to pick up a 17-40 L f4.0 and 24-105 L f4.0, to see if they substantially outperformed the Tamron. The results surprised me.

At 4.0, the Tamron outperformed both instances of the L glass – a little bit in the center, and substantially in the corners. Now, perhaps you might say that this isn’t all that unexpected, since the L glass is wide-open at f4.0, while the Tamron is already closed a few stops (since it starts at f2.8). But I think it’s still a fair comparison, given that in the real world, you are going to use the same lenses at the same settings, regardless of where they ‘start.’ In any event, the Tamron at f2.8 still outperformed the L glass at f4.0 (which is each of their respective 'wide open' settings).

The L glass ‘caught up’ to the Tamron in the middle of the photo somewhere around f5.6, and caught up on the edges at around f8.0. Moreover, at higher f-stops, the L glass occasionally produced slightly more clarity in the middle of the photo. But the L glass really didn’t come across as ‘superior’ overall.

What’s going on here? I recognize that the Tamron has very high resolution ratings, but should it really be outperforming L glass in this manner? I find it hard to believe that I received two bad samples of L glass (I will note that the build quality on the L glass was outstanding).

Sample photos and selected 100% crops may be found at:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/uwlaw/sets/72157594465507436/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/uwlaw/sets/72157594465509578/

One drawback I’ve noticed on the Tamron – it seems to take more “bad shots” than I would expect. That is, one out of 20 shots or so is blurry in its entirety with no explicable reason (and a shutter speed of 1/100 or faster). This seems to happen primarily at 35-50mm, and at f8.0 and above. Has anyone else experienced this?
 
The resolution figures are no surprise, I think, from other tests around the http://www .

As for 'L' quality, the 'L' rating is about more than resolution; it's also about build quality, speed and accuracy of focussing, contrast, colour, bokeh, 'dropability' etc etc.

There's also the issue of longevity. I have the Tamron. I also have the 80-200L. The latter is around 15 years old; I'd be very pleasantly surprised if the Tamron is working perfectly in 15 years' time.

Stuart

--
- -

 
uwlaw said:
One drawback I’ve noticed on the Tamron – it seems to take more
“bad shots” than I would expect. That is, one out of 20 shots or
so is blurry in its entirety with no explicable reason (and a
shutter speed of 1/100 or faster). This seems to happen primarily
at 35-50mm, and at f8.0 and above. Has anyone else experienced
this?
Click to expand...
I have not noticed this with my Tamron 17-50. It focuses decisively and gets as many keepers as my USM lenses.

--
Amin

equipment in profile
 
This was my experience exactly; I even rented a 24-105 for a weekend to be sure.

I had the same experience with the 17-55.

The Tamron's IQ, combined with it's small size, make it a real winner.

The occassional bad focus may be due to the camera choosing the wrong focus spot. Mine focuses perfectly.
uwlaw said:
As a recent convert from film to digital (Canon 30D), I spent a
ridiculous amount of time researching online in an effort to find
the best walk-around lens for a 1.6 crop camera. Yes, I know I’m
not alone in this regard. I eventually settled on the Tamron 17-50
f2.8. But after reading so much about “L” glass in this and other
forums, I decided to pick up a 17-40 L f4.0 and 24-105 L f4.0, to
see if they substantially outperformed the Tamron. The results
surprised me.

At 4.0, the Tamron outperformed both instances of the L glass – a
little bit in the center, and substantially in the corners. Now,
perhaps you might say that this isn’t all that unexpected, since
the L glass is wide-open at f4.0, while the Tamron is already
closed a few stops (since it starts at f2.8). But I think it’s
still a fair comparison, given that in the real world, you are
going to use the same lenses at the same settings, regardless of
where they ‘start.’ In any event, the Tamron at f2.8 still
outperformed the L glass at f4.0 (which is each of their respective
'wide open' settings).

The L glass ‘caught up’ to the Tamron in the middle of the photo
somewhere around f5.6, and caught up on the edges at around f8.0.
Moreover, at higher f-stops, the L glass occasionally produced
slightly more clarity in the middle of the photo. But the L glass
really didn’t come across as ‘superior’ overall.

What’s going on here? I recognize that the Tamron has very high
resolution ratings, but should it really be outperforming L glass
in this manner? I find it hard to believe that I received two bad
samples of L glass (I will note that the build quality on the L
glass was outstanding).

Sample photos and selected 100% crops may be found at:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/uwlaw/sets/72157594465507436/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/uwlaw/sets/72157594465509578/

One drawback I’ve noticed on the Tamron – it seems to take more
“bad shots” than I would expect. That is, one out of 20 shots or
so is blurry in its entirety with no explicable reason (and a
shutter speed of 1/100 or faster). This seems to happen primarily
at 35-50mm, and at f8.0 and above. Has anyone else experienced
this?
Click to expand...
 
This is why I check out the reviews on Photozone.de they correspond pretty well with the real-world results I get.
uwlaw said:
As a recent convert from film to digital (Canon 30D), I spent a
ridiculous amount of time researching online in an effort to find
the best walk-around lens for a 1.6 crop camera. Yes, I know I’m
not alone in this regard. I eventually settled on the Tamron 17-50
f2.8. But after reading so much about “L” glass in this and other
forums, I decided to pick up a 17-40 L f4.0 and 24-105 L f4.0, to
see if they substantially outperformed the Tamron. The results
surprised me.

At 4.0, the Tamron outperformed both instances of the L glass – a
little bit in the center, and substantially in the corners. Now,
perhaps you might say that this isn’t all that unexpected, since
the L glass is wide-open at f4.0, while the Tamron is already
closed a few stops (since it starts at f2.8). But I think it’s
still a fair comparison, given that in the real world, you are
going to use the same lenses at the same settings, regardless of
where they ‘start.’ In any event, the Tamron at f2.8 still
outperformed the L glass at f4.0 (which is each of their respective
'wide open' settings).

The L glass ‘caught up’ to the Tamron in the middle of the photo
somewhere around f5.6, and caught up on the edges at around f8.0.
Moreover, at higher f-stops, the L glass occasionally produced
slightly more clarity in the middle of the photo. But the L glass
really didn’t come across as ‘superior’ overall.

What’s going on here? I recognize that the Tamron has very high
resolution ratings, but should it really be outperforming L glass
in this manner? I find it hard to believe that I received two bad
samples of L glass (I will note that the build quality on the L
glass was outstanding).

Sample photos and selected 100% crops may be found at:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/uwlaw/sets/72157594465507436/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/uwlaw/sets/72157594465509578/

One drawback I’ve noticed on the Tamron – it seems to take more
“bad shots” than I would expect. That is, one out of 20 shots or
so is blurry in its entirety with no explicable reason (and a
shutter speed of 1/100 or faster). This seems to happen primarily
at 35-50mm, and at f8.0 and above. Has anyone else experienced
this?
Click to expand...
--
Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jon_b
 
uwlaw said:
At 4.0, the Tamron outperformed both instances of the L glass – a
little bit in the center, and substantially in the corners. Now,
Click to expand...
You shouldn't be surprised at its performance. It's a lens designed specifically for cropped sensors. That means it's much, much easier to design because it only needs to cover an image size roughly 40% of a traditional 35mm SLR lens.

All these "cropped" lenses tend to yield the great results. The Nikkor 17-55 DX is Nikon's sharpest wide angle zoom, the EF 17-55 is Canon's sharpest wide angle zoom, the Sigma 18-50 Macro is Sigma's best, and Tamron's own 17-50 is no different.

It extends to other types of lenses too. The EF-S 60mm Macro is in a different league than the EF 50mm Macro. The ultra wide EF-S 10-22mm is an excellent lens, and I doubt it's even possible to make a EF lens in that same range (10-XXmm).
 
with the L lens you are not restricted to cropped sensors.

ed rader

--



'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- Anonymous
 
I have also found the 17-50 f/2.8 to be sharper than my 24-105L
In order my sharp lens's are 50mm f/1.4, 17-50 f/2.8 24-105L and 35 f/2.0
But, as pointed out the L is about other things as well as IQ.

Its a shame i know, especially as my 24-105L cost more than my other lens's but i guess once you take away IS the 24-105L would be worth less and maybe more in line with the other lens's. Its still a very nice lens though IMHO
Maybe a 24-70 f/2.8 really shows off the L factor, eh Ed?
--
Dave.

Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com
 
And my 17-50 f/2.8 has good focus. only really misses a shot in very low light.
Its not as quick as USM but its quick enough for me.
--
Dave.

Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com
 
dave_bass5 said:
I have also found the 17-50 f/2.8 to be sharper than my 24-105L
In order my sharp lens's are 50mm f/1.4, 17-50 f/2.8 24-105L and 35
f/2.0
But, as pointed out the L is about other things as well as IQ.
Its a shame i know, especially as my 24-105L cost more than my
other lens's but i guess once you take away IS the 24-105L would be
worth less and maybe more in line with the other lens's. Its still
a very nice lens though IMHO
Maybe a 24-70 f/2.8 really shows off the L factor, eh Ed?
--
Dave.

Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
Dave -- i've found that the 24-70L has better IQ than the 24-105L. i think to really compare these lens to the 17-55 you have to use them on a FF camera.

on the 5d the 24-70L really shines, and i'll bet so does the 24-105L.

ed rader

--



'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- Anonymous
 
'crop' lenses are made specifically to perform at their best for aps-c sized sensors.

Full frame lenses are made specifically to perform at their best for 35mm sensors.

The 17-40 is actually an ultra wide angle zoomlens, but 'transforms' into a standard range zoomlens on aps-c. And ultra wide angle is more difficult to design than a standard ranged zoomlens, so a made-for-crop-standard-ranged zoomlens outperforming an ultra wide angle designed 17-40L makes complete sense to me.

Another example: the very highly respected 35/1.4,L stopped down two stops, should be sharper at 35mm than a 24-105L wide open at 35/4.

But put the 35mm on a crop camera and the 24-105 on a ff and things change:



I think lenses perform at their best on the specific system they were designed and optimized for.
 
antidote said:
ed rader said:
with the L lens you are not restricted to cropped sensors.
Click to expand...
the tamron 17-50 on a FF camera as well? am i wrong?
Click to expand...
i just read on. :)

it was just that i have the tamron 28-75/2.8, and i know that can be used on a FF camera. i naturally thought it was the same with the 17-50.

btw does anyone know whether the tamron 90mm macro lens can be used on a FF camera?

sorry for hijacking the thread.

---------
http://www.pbase.com/antidote3
 
uwlaw said:
As a recent convert from film to digital (Canon 30D), I spent a
ridiculous amount of time researching online in an effort to find
the best walk-around lens for a 1.6 crop camera. Yes, I know I’m
not alone in this regard. I eventually settled on the Tamron 17-50
f2.8. But after reading so much about “L” glass in this and other
forums, I decided to pick up a 17-40 L f4.0 and 24-105 L f4.0, to
see if they substantially outperformed the Tamron. The results
surprised me.

At 4.0, the Tamron outperformed both instances of the L glass – a
little bit in the center, and substantially in the corners. Now,
perhaps you might say that this isn’t all that unexpected, since
the L glass is wide-open at f4.0, while the Tamron is already
closed a few stops (since it starts at f2.8). But I think it’s
still a fair comparison, given that in the real world, you are
going to use the same lenses at the same settings, regardless of
where they ‘start.’ In any event, the Tamron at f2.8 still
outperformed the L glass at f4.0 (which is each of their respective
'wide open' settings).

The L glass ‘caught up’ to the Tamron in the middle of the photo
somewhere around f5.6, and caught up on the edges at around f8.0.
Moreover, at higher f-stops, the L glass occasionally produced
slightly more clarity in the middle of the photo. But the L glass
really didn’t come across as ‘superior’ overall.

What’s going on here? I recognize that the Tamron has very high
resolution ratings, but should it really be outperforming L glass
in this manner? I find it hard to believe that I received two bad
samples of L glass (I will note that the build quality on the L
glass was outstanding).

Sample photos and selected 100% crops may be found at:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/uwlaw/sets/72157594465507436/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/uwlaw/sets/72157594465509578/

One drawback I’ve noticed on the Tamron – it seems to take more
“bad shots” than I would expect. That is, one out of 20 shots or
so is blurry in its entirety with no explicable reason (and a
shutter speed of 1/100 or faster). This seems to happen primarily
at 35-50mm, and at f8.0 and above. Has anyone else experienced
this?
Click to expand...
 
I would like to ask you a question about your Tamron. How does it work in dim lighting? The reason I ask is because I have the tamron 28-75 and the quality is well, wonderful. It will produce a very nice night shot if I can key in on a light source. In other words if I try to take a person's picture during the night there is a very good chance and even probable that the camera won't fire at all because a human is not a light source.

I would love to have a wider lens with the Tamron quality but something that shoots as well as my Canon 50mm 1.4. Thus i'm concerned that the 17-50 will have great quality but poor low light focusing capabilities.

I am considering the Sigma 18-50 F/2.8. However in this case I hesitate because I have the Sigma 18-125 which does very well in low light but it lacks the quality of Tamron or Canon lens on a consistant basis. Some of the pictures are sometimes very good with that lens(18-125) given a friendly color temperture.
 
antidote said:
antidote said:
ed rader said:
with the L lens you are not restricted to cropped sensors.
Click to expand...
the tamron 17-50 on a FF camera as well? am i wrong?
Click to expand...
i just read on. :)

it was just that i have the tamron 28-75/2.8, and i know that can
be used on a FF camera. i naturally thought it was the same with
the 17-50.

btw does anyone know whether the tamron 90mm macro lens can be used
on a FF camera?
Click to expand...
Yes, i'm pretty sure it can. (hope so anyway :) There may a couple threads in the 5D forum with shots from the Tamron 90. The Tamron 90 is a "Di" lens which is suitable for either digital or film cameras (according to Tamron's site) whereas other Tamron's are designated "Dii" and not compatable with full frame.
antidote said:
sorry for hijacking the thread.

---------
http://www.pbase.com/antidote3
Click to expand...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Japan Gallery http://www.pbase.com/japanese__wanderings
 
I must admit i was disappointed with the IQ of my 24-105L when i got it. Not that its bad, just that it didnt seem as sharp as my 17-50 f/2.8 and old 28-75 f/2.8, nor much better than my Canon 28-105USM MKII which it was replacing. In fact my 28-105 is faster at the wide end and only slightly slower at the long end. but i wanted slightly wider, IS and better IQ if possible. I looked around for another lens that would suit my needs and there wasn't anything else other than the 24-105L

A bit OT but s pointed out it may work better on a FF camera but then you loose the reach you get with a x1.6 camera. This was the reason i got rid of my 28-75 f/2.8 as i wanted more reach. In fact if i did get a 5D im not sure there is anything around the 130mm-160mm range in a quality, IS lens for it.
This (and cost) puts me off getting a FF camera.

all IMHO of course

--
Dave.

Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com
 
The Tamron is a really nice lens. It doesn't focus very well in low light. Everyones definition of low light will vary.

But recently I was covering a company party my assistant was using my 28-70 2.8 L and having no trouble and I got frustrated and switched to my old 24-85 which focused perfectly. In fairness to the lens I was using a qflash which wasn't giving any focus assist ... although it wasn't helping the 24-85 either. I also used the Sigma 30 1.4 and it did well focusing.

Having said that under most other lighting conditions the Tamron produces nice sharp well focused images.
 
dave_bass5 said:
dave_bass5 wrote:
I must admit i was disappointed with the IQ of my 24-105L when i
got it. Not that its bad, just that it didnt seem as sharp as my
17-50 f/2.8 and old 28-75 f/2.8, nor much better than my Canon
28-105USM MKII which it was replacing. In fact my 28-105 is faster
at the wide end and only slightly slower at the long end. but i
wanted slightly wider, IS and better IQ if possible. I looked
around for another lens that would suit my needs and there wasn't
anything else other than the 24-105L
Click to expand...
I've had the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and the 24-105 I have was fortunately just as sharp. The difference is clearly noticeable on full frame at the edges, where the Tamron just isn't as good as the two Canon Ls (the 24-70 and the 24-105) which I have both. The edge to edge performance was basically the reason why I exchanged the Tamron for the 24-70L, since I did like its centersharpness and the compact size of it.
dave_bass5 said:
A bit OT but s pointed out it may work better on a FF camera but
then you loose the reach you get with a x1.6 camera. This was the
reason i got rid of my 28-75 f/2.8 as i wanted more reach. In fact
if i did get a 5D im not sure there is anything around the
130mm-160mm range in a quality, IS lens for it.
This (and cost) puts me off getting a FF camera.
Click to expand...
Strange to hear that. There are the 70-200/2.8 L IS and the 70-200/4L IS to cover that range. They're both very high quality. Another cheaper option is the 70-300 IS which also has a very good reputation, and the higher priced 100-400L IS also overlaps that range. IMHO, quality isn't really a valid reason to decide to not go for Full Frame. Cost can be though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top