Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Sample Photo Archives Lens Sample Photo Archive
Thread started 29 Aug 2006 (Tuesday) 08:43
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8

 
Stan43
Goldmember
Stan43's Avatar
1,202 posts
Joined Nov 2005
Louisville KY
Aug 29, 2006 08:43 |  #1

Any experience with this lens. The tests I've read seem to be favorable from an IQ. Can't beat the price ,Apx. $499 , for the 2.8 vs. 17-40 or others.


Canon: 5DSr,5Dmk3,1DXmk2 (on order). 11-24L,35L,70-200 2.8L2,24-105L,24-70L,Sigma 24-105 Art,50 1.4 Art,Tamron SP85 1.8,Tamron SP90 Macro.
Pentax 645Z,90 2.8 Macro,55 2.8,24-48 . Fuji: EX2,XT1,14mm,18-55,56,55-200,Zeis Touit 2.8 Macro

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Guineh
I've been wisdom free for about 10 years, now.
Guineh's Avatar
9,030 posts
Joined May 2006
In a gilded cage
Aug 29, 2006 12:58 |  #2

I have it, so far I like it. At 2.8 on the wide end its slightly soft, but stop it down to 4, or even 3.6 and its razor sharp, Sharpening works reasonably well on images I've taken with 2.8. The only real complaint I have is the noisy AF motor, but thats minor.


Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler - Albert Einstein
7D, 40D, Sigma 10-20 EX HSM, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 SP XR Di II, EF 50 F1.8, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS, Sigma 1.4x TC, Kenko Tubes, Sigma EF-500 DG ST Flash
Flickrexternal link - Blogexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tee ­ Why
"Monkey's uncle"
Tee Why's Avatar
10,596 posts
Joined Feb 2006
Pasadena, CA
Aug 29, 2006 12:58 |  #3

Just bought one for $439 at Beachcamera.
From what I read, the optics are very good, especially corner sharpness. The colors of the Tamron is very good as well. Optically, the only downside maybe CA at 17mm according to photozone.de, but I wasn't concerned from looking at his shot taken at 17mm at f2.8. The other is the vingetting at f2.8 at 17mm, again a minor thing for me in real world photos. Lastly at 17, there is a bit of barrel distortion. Then again, what 17mm zooms don't have this? It certainly has less CA and maybe even less distortion than the Sigma's version. It certainly is sharper on the corners than the Sigma.

In terms of build quality, this is where Tamron falls behind. It looks like their philosophy is to deliver top notch optics with a mediocore build for a great price. So the lens barrel is light and plasticky, the AF is noisier and slower, and the MF ring rotates during focusing.

However, if the best optics per dollar is your goal, current line up of Tamrons for dslr is hard to beat.


Gallery: http://tomyi.smugmug.c​om/external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Stan43
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Stan43's Avatar
1,202 posts
Joined Nov 2005
Louisville KY
Aug 29, 2006 13:20 as a reply to Tee Why's post |  #4

Thanks for the feedback. As I agonize over lens choices, part of our destiny, my latest thought is that I will add a FF body after the next Canon iteration of 5D,3D or whatever.
I'll still keep the 20D but maybe the 17-40 0r 16-35 would be a smarter purchase. You can see by my sig that I can get by until then. Either would give me wide capability with great build quality and resale value if need be.

I have been concentrating on lenses I can keep for a long time. I have read about build quality of the Tammy elsewhere. I migt just stay with Canon as funds allow.


Canon: 5DSr,5Dmk3,1DXmk2 (on order). 11-24L,35L,70-200 2.8L2,24-105L,24-70L,Sigma 24-105 Art,50 1.4 Art,Tamron SP85 1.8,Tamron SP90 Macro.
Pentax 645Z,90 2.8 Macro,55 2.8,24-48 . Fuji: EX2,XT1,14mm,18-55,56,55-200,Zeis Touit 2.8 Macro

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tee ­ Why
"Monkey's uncle"
Tee Why's Avatar
10,596 posts
Joined Feb 2006
Pasadena, CA
Aug 29, 2006 13:26 |  #5

The 17-40L maybe a better long term investment for the resale and ability to use it with a FF sensor as well, not to mention the build quality difference. The only problem for some is the cost difference.


Gallery: http://tomyi.smugmug.c​om/external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
us_navyls
Hatchling
9 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Aug 29, 2006 19:53 as a reply to Tee Why's post |  #6

Tee Why wrote:
In terms of build quality, this is where Tamron falls behind. It looks like their philosophy is to deliver top notch optics with a mediocore build for a great price. So the lens barrel is light and plasticky, the AF is noisier and slower, and the MF ring rotates during focusing.

However, if the best optics per dollar is your goal, current line up of Tamrons for dslr is hard to beat.

I have one. If I have to pay a price I rather have good optics with less good build than the other way round...the goal is doing good photos after all...! Of course I would prefer to have also excellent build but then probably it would cost 800$...

Anyway I am not dissatisfied with build, I like it, it feels good to me. but maybe it is me who is too easily satisfied...maybe it is because I've never had an L so I don't know really the difference




LOG IN TO REPLY
LightRules
"flat out embarrassing"
LightRules's Avatar
9,908 posts
Joined Jun 2005
Aug 29, 2006 20:02 as a reply to us_navyls's post |  #7

us_navyls wrote:
maybe it is because I've never had an L so I don't know really the difference

:rolleyes:

:)




LOG IN TO REPLY
Stan43
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Stan43's Avatar
1,202 posts
Joined Nov 2005
Louisville KY
Aug 29, 2006 23:45 as a reply to us_navyls's post |  #8

Well put! When the optics are very good where does the good vs. great build quality come into play ...when the cost is considerably less I guess. Many have said they like the Tamron. I guess I'm back where I started but I probably can't go wrong.

As has been said many times on this blog. Make a choice and then go take the best pics you can.


Canon: 5DSr,5Dmk3,1DXmk2 (on order). 11-24L,35L,70-200 2.8L2,24-105L,24-70L,Sigma 24-105 Art,50 1.4 Art,Tamron SP85 1.8,Tamron SP90 Macro.
Pentax 645Z,90 2.8 Macro,55 2.8,24-48 . Fuji: EX2,XT1,14mm,18-55,56,55-200,Zeis Touit 2.8 Macro

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tee ­ Why
"Monkey's uncle"
Tee Why's Avatar
10,596 posts
Joined Feb 2006
Pasadena, CA
Aug 30, 2006 00:24 |  #9

Looking at your gear, I guess you find yourself switching between the Toke and the 24-105L and want something that goes from late teens to mid range like a 17-50. I've had two tammies and the optics and the value are good that I ordered another one, so I'm voting with my wallet. I forget the feel of the lens when I shoot and the results of the optics are in the pro class, so I guess it's all a personal decision.

I can whole heartedly recommend the new XR Di line of Tamrons as they are all great lenses in my view with excellent values. Those that want a lens that "feel" great should look elsewhere though. Those that want the best bang for the bucks in optics and purely optics can stop looking.


Gallery: http://tomyi.smugmug.c​om/external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
dave_bass5
Goldmember
4,124 posts
Joined Apr 2005
London, centre of the universe
Aug 30, 2006 04:54 |  #10

Ill agree with the others. its a very nice, sharp lens. not too sharp wide open at f/2.8 but usable if needed.
The Tamrons feels cheaper than canons but its the optics that count IMHO and the Tamrons are spot on.
I have the 17-50 and had the 28-75 and they are the sharpest lens's i have owned


Dave.
Gallery@http://www.flickr.com/​photos/davebass5/ (external link)
Canon 5DMKIII |Canon 650D | Canon 24-70 f/2.8L MKII | Canon 70-200 f/4L IS | 70-300L | 135L f/2.0 | 100 f/2 USM | 40 f/2.8 STM | 35mm f/2 IS | Canon S110 | Fuji F31FD | Canon 580EXII, 270EXII | Yongnuo YN-622C Triggers.

LOG IN TO REPLY
grego
Cream of the Crop
grego's Avatar
8,819 posts
Joined May 2005
UCLA
Aug 30, 2006 05:02 |  #11

We need to make a lens sample thread for this lens. :)

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=141406


Go UCLAexternal link!! |Gear|http://gregburmann.comexternal linkSportsShooterexternal link|Flickrexternal link|

LOG IN TO REPLY
dave_bass5
Goldmember
4,124 posts
Joined Apr 2005
London, centre of the universe
Aug 30, 2006 05:08 |  #12

Good idea
Heres one i like. not a great comp but nice and sharp

IMAGE: http://davepearce.smugmug.com/photos/91551230-O.jpg

Dave.
Gallery@http://www.flickr.com/​photos/davebass5/ (external link)
Canon 5DMKIII |Canon 650D | Canon 24-70 f/2.8L MKII | Canon 70-200 f/4L IS | 70-300L | 135L f/2.0 | 100 f/2 USM | 40 f/2.8 STM | 35mm f/2 IS | Canon S110 | Fuji F31FD | Canon 580EXII, 270EXII | Yongnuo YN-622C Triggers.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Jman13
Cream of the Crop
Jman13's Avatar
5,558 posts
Joined Dec 2005
Columbus, OH
Aug 30, 2006 05:44 |  #13

The Tamron looks to be a good bet. From all the test shots I've seen, it seems be very good optically. I have handled one, but never shot with one. The build was ok. Better than a lot of consumer lenses, but not pro-level.

The build is one reason I'm waiting to see if the new Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 (which should be out in the next couple months) is as optically good as the Tamron, since I know first hand just how good Tokina builds their lenses.


Jordan Steele - http://www.jordansteel​e.comexternal link
Admiring Light - http://www.admiringlig​ht.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
YARRO
Member
YARRO's Avatar
201 posts
Joined Feb 2006
Assen, The Netherlands
Aug 30, 2006 06:32 |  #14

I have the Tammy.
IQ is very good. Especially when taking "real world" pics.
Build quality is indeed not as good as an L-lens, but is much better than most Canon consumer lenses. When extended there's no wobble and no zoom creep.
It feels solid enough.


Canon 50D + Grip, Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L, Canon EF 70-300mm IS USM, Tamron AF17-50MM F/2.8, Canon Speedlite 430 EX + Lumiquest Big Bounce, Gitzo G1564L Monopod + Manfrotto 468 MG RC-0 hydro ballhead, Canon RC RS-80N3, Lowepro Slingshot 200AW.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tee ­ Why
"Monkey's uncle"
Tee Why's Avatar
10,596 posts
Joined Feb 2006
Pasadena, CA
Aug 30, 2006 13:11 |  #15

Yeah, I'd classify their optics as L level and build quality as just above Canon consumer grade level as well, at about $100 or so above Canon consumer grade prices.
Good deal overall.


Gallery: http://tomyi.smugmug.c​om/external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

1,272,901 views & 5 likes for this thread
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
FORUMS Sample Photo Archives Lens Sample Photo Archive


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00197 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
Latest registered member is Alexander J.E. Bradley
817 guests, 456 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 5577, that happened on Mar 02, 2016