Tamron 17-50 2.8 Non IS

Hi Guys,

Would you recommend this lens as a replacement over the 18-55?

I have just borrowed a 17-55 2.8 and absolutely loved it, but I can not afford the £750 price tag. However, the Tamron is coming in at £250 and people have advised me to get the non IS version?

If you wouldn't recommend this lens, what else would you suggest for around £350 max.

Regards.

I bought it to replace the kit lens, can't be happier. I also bought a 17-40 L before and sold it to get the 17-50. Buy it, you won't regret it!

Rivest wrote in post #11033774
I bought it to replace the kit lens, can't be happier. I also bought a 17-40 L before and sold it to get the 17-50. Buy it, you won't regret it!

Exact same scenario here. Had 18-55 (non-IS, the IS is a lot better), got the 17-40L and then sold the L after getting the tamron 17-50.

the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 non IS or the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8.

Went from 18-55IS to the Tammy. Honestly, not too much difference in sharpness (But the tamron is already as sharp at f/2.8 ).
But the kit lens had way more CA (so I was forced to PP more) and the aperture was annoying and limiting, the IS was useless for me.
After reading MANY reviews, the 17-50 turned out to be the best choice for the price.
I love this lens, even wide open. The motor is definitely slower than the 17-55, but quick enough generally. It's also loud- complements the whine of my XSI's mirror/shutter

My tamron is as sharp as my 70-200. It is really sharp. It might be my sharpest lens. Go for it.

The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is a great lens..I really like mine..

I will chime in. I love my Tamraon 17-50 F/2.8 as well. I tried the 17-40 F/4L before trying the Tamron, and found the tamron Sharper than the Canon as well. I thought it might have been the display 17-40 so I got them to take another one out of the box and found it the same as the first one. So I saved some money and went with the Tamron

--Evan

As for IS, people on here are saying the Non-Vc should be sharper. But I guess If you need/want IS than go for it

The non-VC is sharper according to reviews. But the center sharpness is about the same.
So, both models are sharp, but one is sharper over the whole frame

Would I notice the lack of IS?

The Canon 17-55 F/2.8 IS is a very nice lens, if you can afford it, I do suggest it. But at twice the price of the Tamron here, I couldn't afford it at the time, and can't justify buying one now, even if I can afford it.

But it depends upon how often you take photo's in low light. The IS will definately help compensate for your movements, but it will do nothing for the movement of the subject of your photo. I just got back from a month in Paris, and definately would have appreciated the IS in the dimly lit Museum's that your not allowed to use a flash in. But I was taking pictures of stationary objects. If they were moving, it wouldn't have helped because of motion blur. So it just depends upon what your taking pictures of, and where.

--Evan

I think you'd enjoy the Tamron, it's a good lens at a good price point. The difference in sharpness between the non-IS and the IS is likely to be negligible if you you need/want IS, I'd get that one; mine was plenty sharp (til I dropped it)

I still think that some other features of the Canon make it more attractive; but if you're on a budget that excludes that, I wouldn't hesitate in recommending the Tamron.

MrCraigBerry wrote in post #11035392
Would I notice the lack of IS?

I didn't. It's really not terribly necessary at these lower focal lengths. Going by the generally used rule, you just need to maintain better than 1/50th s handheld which shouldn't be too tough.
If you want to test it out though, the easiest thing to try is going shooting for a day with the kit lens and turn IS off.

The sharpness on this lens is very noticeably better than the kit lens but the more important thing to me was the constant aperture and the 2.8 for nice fast shots and DOF effects. (M mode with the kit lens is such a pain).

I spent so much time looking at lens and came to this one as well. Unfortunately mine is in for repair right now, but this doesn't seem to be a huge issue for most people so I'm hoping it's just a fluke thing.

Sure IS helps.
But I think that it's advantage starts under 1/15 for me (lowest speed that was not blurry handheld). Never had anything lit so dimly to use such shutter speed (after maxing ISO at 1600). I've just tried shooting under a single 60W bulb- at f/2.8 and ISO 200, that needed a 1/20 second exposure. So no problem at 17mm. At 50mm just bump the ISO to 800 for at least 1/40.
If you don't want or can't hold the camera steady enough (I admit it requires some concentration, shooting some guns seems like a good way to train ) - an IS could be great help in very low light situations.

But comparing a stabilized f/3.5-5.6 lens with a simple f/2.8 lens- I'd rather use the f/2.8- even in low light (the shutter speed will always be higher anyway).
I never really liked the IS on the 18-55 anyway.