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

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 !
Hi Bernard,
I'm learning English and would like to know what 'Goofy'ing around' means.
Thanks!
 
JV, you seem to have taken it the way I met it, as 'teasing', I'm Goofy'ing around all the time also !

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 !
 
I have the VC version of this lens. It's extremely sharp, offers great colors, the VC is pretty remarkable - overall a very good lens.

The only knocks I have against it are related to the autofocus. First, it's loud. I really can't overstate the noise that comes from this lens when autofocusing, especially compared to a USM. It's a mixture of a whir and grind that I haven't gotten used to in the 6+ months I've had it. Second, it isn't as fast as a native lens. But then, that's a problem for all third party lenses. We aren't talking about a huge difference in AF time, but it is noticeable when you switch from the Tamron to a Canon lens. Finally, the AF hunts and sometimes doesn't lock on in low light. It's not a huge issue, but it has happened enough for me to notice it.

If Tamron put their new fast, silent AF motor from the 70-300 in this, it'd be a home run. Otherwise, if you can live with the AF differences, slightly lower corner sharpness, and a slight difference in color (in my opinion), it's a very fine lens at a great price. As for me? I'm currently trying a Canon 17-55. If it's a big enough difference, I'll sell the Tamron. If not, I'll return it knowing I already have a good lens.
 
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...
[...]
hope I'll like the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-VC
If you didn't like the Canon for the reasons stated, I don't really see why you would suddenly like a Tamron that is pretty darn similar.

I mean, it's lighter and cheaper sure, but it's not any faster--still 2.8.
 
I understand what you are saying, but I'm not buying it for low light, not primarily, I was referring to people talking about VC and low light... the Tamron 17-50 VC and then the 17-55

I want the 17-50 focal range in a smaller body, at a better price...

about the Canon 17-55 maybe mine was a bad copy or something... and now I'm hoping for something better....

but of course I'm a bit crazy, that's the bottom line, during the years I've found out that my decisions regarding lenses and cameras tend to be impulsive not to say more... not rational or always sensible (I like to experiment....)

regards
 
I owned the Tamron 17-50 non-VC which I used on my 40D. I sold it and now have regrets. I am tossing around replacing it with the same or something else in the same focal range. The Tammy non-VC really was a good lens and the reasons for its sell now seem flawed. I have heard less good things about the VC version.

The Sigma 17-50 appears very promising and I do like the idea of having vibration control, however, I watched a youtube video where you can hear the rattling VC element while the Sigma lens is off the camera. I don't know if the amount of rattling in the youtube video was normal but I've read the Sigma's OS element does rattle while in the vertical position and this is normal. Nevertheless, I can't get by the feeling that the VC mechanism is someting waiting to eventually fail. I welcome someone telling me why my concerns are ill-founded, because I hear very good things about the Sigma's image quality. Good luck with your decision.
Larry
 
Hi JV,

Goofing around can be okay or not so okay. The boss might say, "Hey you guys, quit goofing around and get back to work." That obviously isn't good. If Dangle from the TV show, Reno 911, says, "I'm just boot goofin'" That means he is dancing around on the sidewalk in his new cowboy boots. That kind of goofing around is, of course, essentially harmless. Some people might call their fun-loving friend a goofball in an affectionate matter like "You're such a goofball," or "You're such a goof." Of course, the same term could be used negatively to describe someone who always gets everything wrong.

I'm glad you are learning English. The only thing is it enforces the notion that I should learn another language before I die.
Best Regards,
Larry
Hi Bernard,
I'm learning English and would like to know what 'Goofy'ing around' means.
Thanks!
 
I have both the Tamron 17-50 VC and the Canon EFS 17-55 IS. I prefer the Canon for the its better corner sharpness and lAF. I need another normal zoom for my assistant photographer for covering events so I bought the Tamron its cheaper price.
 
I've had a Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro for years, great lens, the 17-50 is better. The Tamron has reports of not working with all focusing points on a 7d.
 
I've had a Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro for years, great lens, the 17-50 is better. The Tamron has reports of not working with all focusing points on a 7d.
Mine works fine on a 7D, I've never found any problem activating any of the focus points. How would you recognize the issue you refer to?
Neil
 
I also use mine with a 7D, no focus point issue. I also haven't seen any hunting, unless you count shooting in conditions dark enough to cause my Canon 50 1.4 to hunt as well.
 
I've had a Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro for years, great lens, the 17-50 is better. The Tamron has reports of not working with all focusing points on a 7d.
Yeah I'm more interested in the Sigma now that I came across that information on the Tamron focus issues.

I mean, I use the middle point more than half the time, but futureproofing you know.
 
The 2.8 isn't always enough without IS, but if you prop yourself against something you can get good results.

This is in Marrakesh:

 
This lens has existed for several years now (non-VC) and has a very good reputation for image quality and value. I decided last year to go for the then-new VC version and in terms of IQ, the good reputation is well-earned. I feel that it's a very good lens at all focal lengths and apertures (corners aren't great at f/2.8, but who cares?).

The problem with this lens is it's horrible AF performance. Mine is slow, and will misfocus at least 25% of the time (even in good light). It refuses to focus at all in conditions that my other lenses work fine with no hunting. At first I thought this was an isolated issue with my lens, but that doesn't seem to be the case (many people seem to agree with me). Incidentally, it seems to focus a little bit better with my old 40D (now my girlfriend's), but still isn't great. It's possible that it's particularly bad on 7D bodies because it doesn't properly communicate with the camera (the lens was designed before the 7D existed and the 7D AF is all-new). Sigma used to have compatibility problems with some lenses and new bodies and I think something similar is happening here.

In short, I'd stay away and go for the new Sigma 17-50OS if I were you. I'm quite disappointed with the Tammy.
--
-Scott
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redteg94/
 
Just got mine today, the non-VC version.... no problem with autofocus.. have been taking pictures indoors, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400 ISO on 60D... happy with the outcome so far...

regards
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top