Why wasn't I informed about the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8?

akin_t · Dec 8, 2010

I mean, I've been looking for a fast zoom for ages ... I completely forgot that third party options exist.

No clue if the EF-S 17-55mm is better but even if it is ... Is it $600 better than Tamron's offering? Mind you I'm looking into the non IS/VC version ... Is there any reason I should be looking into the IS/VC version since it's already f/2.8?

neilgc · Dec 8, 2010

I have had the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC for a year now and I love it. It is sharper than my 24-105L and the VC works brilliantly. Seems there were one or two duds at the beginning, but most users seem very happy if you check the various forums. Test sites suggest that it is as good as the canon except at f2.8 where the Canon is better in the corners.
Neil

akin_t · Dec 8, 2010

neilgc said:
I have had the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC for a year now and I love it. It is sharper than my 24-105L and the VC works brilliantly. Seems there were one or two duds at the beginning, but most users seem very happy if you check the various forums. Test sites suggest that it is as good as the canon except at f2.8 where the Canon is better in the corners.
Neil

I don't think I really care about corner sharpness at f/2.8 ... I'll be using this for low light event shooting most of the time.

I currently have 15-85mm, 35mm f/1.4L, and 135mm f/2L. My 135mm doesn't see much action, but I am very pleased with the 15-85mm and my 35mm f/1.4L.

Sadly primes just don't cut it when shooting events, so I was considering the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 ... But there's just no way I'm paying that much money for that lens. It's overpriced in my opinion.

It's either between the Sigma 17-50 and the Tamron 17-50 ... Any word on failure rates of these?

neilgc · Dec 8, 2010

You might find this helpful when you are making up your mind.
http://photo.net/equipment/tamron/17-50vc/

Bob Atkins also looked at the sigma and compared directly with the Canon. Seems the Sigma is pretty good too.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/Canon_EF-S_17-55_Sigma_17-50_review.html
Neil

Gunnlaugur Gudmundsson · Dec 8, 2010

I have heard a lot of nice things about the Tamron 17-50, the non VC version... some people say it's better than the VC version.. photozone.de, digital-picture, slrgear... all sites recommend it highly

In fact I've been in your shoes... (but sold my 135 f2 - wonderful, never used it) and have been looking at the 17-55 2.8... and then bingo... just ordered the Tamron from B&H Photo...

regards

Gunnlaugur Gudmundsson · Dec 8, 2010

The Tamron VC 570g $649 80x96mm (?)
Tamron non VC 430g $459 74x82mm

it's smaller and cheaper, so if you are using it for events and don't need the VC/IS I think the older version is a better choice...

my opinion, anyway

regards

raptorx · Dec 8, 2010

Gunnlaugur Gudmundsson said:
I have heard a lot of nice things about the Tamron 17-50, the non VC version... some people say it's better than the VC version.. photozone.de, digital-picture, slrgear... all sites recommend it highly

In fact I've been in your shoes... (but sold my 135 f2 - wonderful, never used it) and have been looking at the 17-55 2.8... and then bingo... just ordered the Tamron from B&H Photo...

regards

congrats . you ordered the VC version or non-VC version?

--
love to shoot both airguns and pictures

Peter 13 · Dec 8, 2010

akin_t said:
No clue if the EF-S 17-55mm is better but even if it is ... Is it $600 better than Tamron's offering? Mind you I'm looking into the non IS/VC version ... Is there any reason I should be looking into the IS/VC version since it's already f/2.8?

Yes. F/2.8 is not such a big jump in low light capabilities. Combined with IS, it is. A typical indoor non-flash photo that I would take is at f/2.8, and 1/15 sec (depending on FL but IS is less effective at shorter FL's anyway). A non IS, say 35 mm prime at f/2.8 is about 1/3 stop brighter but not fast enough for indoor shooting. Of course, you can open it more but then you lose DOF, possible contrast, etc. Great if you are looking into the shallow DOF effect, and not so much for casual family snapshots. You should know that, you own the 35L.

Is it worth the $600? Only you can say that. With f/2.8 zooms on a crop, forget about the artistic blur (I still managed to get a few of those but in very special situations). It is about more speed. The IS adds a few stops more. That is a lot. (Please, anonymous reader, spare me the remark about the moving subjects

).

Bernard D · Dec 8, 2010

I got the non-VC version two weeks ago, and LOVE IT ! It's sharp and fast, I use it with my Canon 40D. I use it to take portrait of hockey players and teams on the ice, and light is always an issue, I used my Canon 50mm 1.8 before, but this allow me more flexibility, and the focus works better, or more accurate more often than the 50mm 1.8, just my observation.

I don't think you would regret the purchase, I'm on my way to Walt Disney tomorrow in Florida, and it's the lens that will most likely be on my camera the entire time

Bernard

--

I measure my success in life not by my awards, but by the amount of smiles, hugs and kisses I get from my family on a daily basis !

durt_b1ker · Dec 8, 2010

I've used the non VC on Alpha mount and now the VC on the 7D. I haven't noticed any difference optically, the vc is a small amount larger/heavier. I am very happy with it as a walk-around, travel, and indoor lens when lighting is appropriate.

The focus is fast if a bit audible, and the zoom ring is a little tighter than I am used to with oem lenses. Those are negligble drawbacks for most casual users. I did get the VC, but in retrospect I always use the primes if it is too dark for a suitable shutter speed. Still, better to have it and not need it. And if you don't have a couple wide to normal 1.4~1.8 aperature primes you may end up needing some VC in poorly lit candid settings...bars, receptions, etc.

Gunnlaugur Gudmundsson · Dec 8, 2010

non-VC

Gunnlaugur Gudmundsson · Dec 8, 2010

For me size matters... I like small lenses and cameras... I'm primarily going to use this lens for video on 60D

I agree about f2.8 not being great for low light... I actually had the Canon 17-55 f2.8IS but sold it last year... didn't really care for it... too big, not good enough in low light...

bought a 35 1.4 (and also a 35 f2 when I want to be especially small)

hope I'll like the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-VC

regards

Jim4496 · Dec 8, 2010

I don't think you would regret the purchase, I'm on my way to Walt Disney tomorrow in Florida, and it's the lens that will most likely be on my camera the entire time

So are you saying its a Mickey Mouse lens?

bronxbombers · Dec 8, 2010

considering every other post on every photo forum goes on about it hah

but once more, yeah it's VERY good (i sold 17-40L after getting it)

neilgc · Dec 8, 2010

Exif data with image

but for those too lazy, it's 1/15th at 2.8 (key west this time last year)
Neil

akin_t · Dec 8, 2010

neilgc said:
Exif data with image
but for those too lazy, it's 1/15th at 2.8 (key west this time last year)
Neil

Great shot! Nice colors!

How does this lens compare to the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS?

Vernon D Rainwater · Dec 8, 2010

akin_t said:
I mean, I've been looking for a fast zoom for ages ... I completely forgot that third party options exist.

No clue if the EF-S 17-55mm is better but even if it is ... Is it $600 better than Tamron's offering? Mind you I'm looking into the non IS/VC version ... Is there any reason I should be looking into the IS/VC version since it's already f/2.8?

Your Thread Title make me wonder if you have been in some unusual status (or confinement) that you have had no access to a Computer and Google which would place your needs/desires on your own initiative to search and/or look for what you need -- and without the need for anyone to inform you.....

I have both the Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non VC) and the 28-75 2.8 and both are excellent. The original (first unit) of the 28-75 was perfect when received. The 17-50 was a complete different story with original plus 3 replacements from the Seller, and the last still was not good so sent to Tamron for Warranty Repairs 4 different times before it was finally functioning properly.

If you get a good copy, they are good lens. Check or test thoroughly upon receipt
--
Vernon...

Bernard D · Dec 8, 2010

Stop Goofy'ing around

Bernard

--

I measure my success in life not by my awards, but by the amount of smiles, hugs and kisses I get from my family on a daily basis !

Another birder · Dec 8, 2010

--
Canon 7D
FujiFilm F20

http://www.pbase.com/timothyo

JV · Dec 9, 2010

Peter 13 said:
akin_t said:

No clue if the EF-S 17-55mm is better but even if it is ... Is it $600 better than Tamron's offering? Mind you I'm looking into the non IS/VC version ... Is there any reason I should be looking into the IS/VC version since it's already f/2.8?

Click to expand...

Yes. F/2.8 is not such a big jump in low light capabilities. Combined with IS, it is. A typical indoor non-flash photo that I would take is at f/2.8, and 1/15 sec (depending on FL but IS is less effective at shorter FL's anyway). A non IS, say 35 mm prime at f/2.8 is about 1/3 stop brighter but not fast enough for indoor shooting. Of course, you can open it more but then you lose DOF, possible contrast, etc. Great if you are looking into the shallow DOF effect, and not so much for casual family snapshots. You should know that, you own the 35L.

Is it worth the $600? Only you can say that. With f/2.8 zooms on a crop, forget about the artistic blur (I still managed to get a few of those but in very special situations). It is about more speed. The IS adds a few stops more. That is a lot. (Please, anonymous reader, spare me the remark about the moving subjects ).

Also consider the second-hand value. 3the party equipment doesn't always hold it's value, while Canon L and 2.8 lenses are very easy to sell. An important issue for me is the poor quality control from some 3the party manufacturers and the high risk to get a bad copy. I hate to find out that I have bought a bad copy (or even worse a mediocre copy). That is the reason why I will not buy Sigma's 12-24 and opt for the EF-S 10-22 although the 12-24 get good reviews and it is FF.

Why wasn't I informed about the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8?

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts