Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8

[Stan43]

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.

[Guineh]

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.

[Tee Why]

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.

[Stan43]

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.

[Tee Why]

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.

[us_navyls]

Originally Posted by Tee Why

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

[LightRules]

Originally Posted by us_navyls

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

[Stan43]

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.

[Tee Why]

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.

[dave_bass5]

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

[grego]

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

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=141406

[dave_bass5]

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

[Jman13]

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.

[YARRO]

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.

[Tee Why]

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.