-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Test results of tamron 17-50 VC on TDP
- Thread starter iljai
- Start date
007peter
Forum Pro
Thank you so much for the link. I just compare the VC vs on the nonVC on both 17mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/2.8. At either end, the older non VC is sharper. At 50mm f/2.8, the old one is so much SHARPER than the newer VC. I hope DP has gotten a bad copy:
Here is the VC vs Original at 50mm f/2.8. Have a look
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=679&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0&LensComp=400&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLI=3&API=0
Here is the VC vs Original at 50mm f/2.8. Have a look
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=679&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0&LensComp=400&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLI=3&API=0
Ron Outdoors
Senior Member
Yes, the quick lab review says as much. The non VC is sharper:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-VC-Lens-Review.aspx
It could be sample variation. My first (older) 17-50 was soft at f/2.8. The second was much better.
--
http://www.ronhartman.net
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-VC-Lens-Review.aspx
It could be sample variation. My first (older) 17-50 was soft at f/2.8. The second was much better.
--
http://www.ronhartman.net
I had a 17-50VC a few weeks ago. It back focused and was not sharp. I returned it and decided to get a used 5D instead and explore FF, but I was not impressed with my copy of the VC. It's still a new lens. Perhaps Tamron can work out some of the issues. Have a lower cost alternative to the nonsensical pricing of the Canon 17-55IS is really important, IMO.
TruePoindexter
Active member
I'd be careful to trust reviews from TDP. There's a definite bias towards Canon there. In fact in nearly every case when reviewing non-Canon gear he has some kind of problem. It's decentered, doesn't focus, back focuses, front focuses, just hates them etc etc. They make concessions when a lens is a truly an outstanding performer but then still have problems with it.
To a certain degree you have to be skeptical of all reviews anyway. I'd reserve judgement on this lens until several other sites review it (slrgear & photozone in particular). The true nature of a lens ends up somewhere around the average of all its reviews.
To a certain degree you have to be skeptical of all reviews anyway. I'd reserve judgement on this lens until several other sites review it (slrgear & photozone in particular). The true nature of a lens ends up somewhere around the average of all its reviews.
camera_nut
Leading Member
I have also read this in the customer reviews for the Nikon version on BH photo's website. So definitely a trend. Too bad. Looked like an interesting lens.
--
Vince
--
Vince
Really a shame. How can tamron have screwed this up? The "old" 17-50 was such an amazing lens for its size and price. I would have been extremely happy if all they would have done was add 200$ to the price, a bit of weight, and added their image stabilization system.
Chez Wimpy
Veteran Member
They had to change the optical formula to accomodate the IS unit. "Common wisdom" until the release of the Canon 70-200/4L was this would create optical compromises (300/4 IS vs non-IS, 70-200/2.8, ect). Seems that Tamron didn't get the memo
(looking at the crops now, to me it doesn't seem objectively worse, just bad in a different way?)--
-CW
よしよし、今日も生きのいい魂が手に入ったな
Chez Wimpy
Veteran Member
After their recent problems with the 24/1.4L II, I would suggest taking any results with a grain of salt.
In general, I don't know how important their testing procedure is wrt real-world results. Would have to think that the flat-field sharp-at-short-distances lenses clean up here. When they get around to posting 1:1 crops from real-world examples (included in many of their newer reviews, which I have found excellent and incredibly informative), it makes any differences much, much clearer.
--
-CW
よしよし、今日も生きのいい魂が手に入ったな
I lost interest after reading about nikon users with unsharp f2.8. I went and got a used 5d as well
stratobill
Senior Member
Not always, in fact he rather likes the original Tamron 17-50, comparing it pretty favorably to the Canon 17-55.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx
If course, he is quick to excuse the Canons problems on the chart page: "Keep in mind that the Canon did not perform well on the ISO 12233 chart test - It doesn't seem to like closer focus distances. "
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx
If course, he is quick to excuse the Canons problems on the chart page: "Keep in mind that the Canon did not perform well on the ISO 12233 chart test - It doesn't seem to like closer focus distances. "
TruePoindexter
Active member
He does give lenses credit where it's due - and then quickly makes excuses or lists reasons why you should still get the Canon. That's not to say the problems he encounters aren't real - just it's interesting how often he has them...
PC Wheeler
Forum Pro
I've never considered the pricing of the 17-55 f/2.8 to be unreasonable compared to other lenses with the same optical performance -- particularly when it is a lens I use a lot (vs. a 10-22 or other specialty, infrequently used, lens).
--
Phil .. Canon EOS 7D, 40D; G11, SD700IS; Panasonic ZS3/TZ7
http://www.pbase.com/phil_wheeler
http://philwheeler.net
herr_bob
Leading Member
I'm using the Nikon version. But from what I see, TDP might get a bad copy. I don't see that amount of haze wide open at 50mm end. Of course, it assumes that the designs are identical.
Hi,
Tests on Lens Gear and Photozone do match much more to my experiences.
That is beside the fact that if the new 17-50 VC does really performs like the test shows, it is a bit of a dissappointment
Regards,
Sandor.
Not because of any bias towards Canon, but several of their lens test results do not match with my experience with the same lenses. Counts for Canons but also non-Canons.
Tests on Lens Gear and Photozone do match much more to my experiences.
That is beside the fact that if the new 17-50 VC does really performs like the test shows, it is a bit of a dissappointment
Regards,
Sandor.
I simply can't beleive Tamron has released such a soft lens at this price point... I own the non VC and it is tack sharp. These guys know how to make good lenses. Maybe the test lens has front/back focus issue which is common on third parties.
--
http://www.jeromeredon.com
--
http://www.jeromeredon.com
Anthony de Vries
Senior Member
The reason he says that, is that he knows that the EF-S 17-55 chart tests are not presentative of real world performance. Probably because with wide angle lenses, the chart is shot a very short distance, which is not representative of normale use. It's a general problem with these test, but different lenses react differently to it.
Montana500
Veteran Member
jeromer wrote:
Maybe the test lens has front/back focus issue which is common on third parties.
That's common for canon too.
Maybe the test lens has front/back focus issue which is common on third parties.
That's common for canon too.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum