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

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 05 Nov 2010 (Friday) 19:43
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Is the Tamron 17-50 f 2.8 a sharp lens?

 
TiaS
Member
239 posts
Joined Jan 2010
     
Nov 05, 2010 19:43 |  #1

I am looking at getting something to replace my kit lens. I want something sharp and fast. I mostly take portraits, pictures of my kids on the go (for which I find the wide angle very useful for playgrounds and indoor shots), and landscapes. So basically I want a muti-use lens. I wish that I had the money for a prime, but I am hoping to keep my budget around $600 (but willing to go higher). I am also looking at the Sigma 17-55 f2.8 and Tamron 28-75mm (I like the idea of the zoom, but the down side is that I loose some wide angle).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,639 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 6281
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Nov 05, 2010 19:45 |  #2

The Tamron 17-50 and the Sigma 18-50 macro are both very good lenses in the $300-350 range. I think you mean the canon 17-55 IS, and yes that is a great lens too, but more expensive. Or you mean the Sigma 17-50 OS?


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
harcosparky
Goldmember
2,425 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 56
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Harford County - ( Bel Air ) Maryland
     
Nov 05, 2010 19:53 |  #3

I sold my Canon 17-40 f/4 L when I found out the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 was sharper then the Canon at f/4.

Also the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is sharper then the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC version.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TiaS
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
239 posts
Joined Jan 2010
     
Nov 05, 2010 20:01 |  #4

I was looking at the Canon 17-55 but it is $1200. Ideally I would like a Canon brand name, but decided to go for the best quality that I can in my budget




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
aznlilrs
Member
55 posts
Joined Mar 2009
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Nov 05, 2010 20:03 |  #5

I actually just got the Tamron 17-50mm and it is quite sharp at 2.8 and very usable. Just playing with it in the house, I know this lens is going to be a keeper for a long time.


Canon 40D | 17-50mm | 50mm f/1.8
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TiaS
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
239 posts
Joined Jan 2010
     
Nov 05, 2010 20:16 |  #6

can a person take professional level photos with the Tamron 17-50mm?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,639 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 6281
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Nov 05, 2010 20:20 |  #7

TiaS wrote in post #11233112 (external link)
can a person take professional level photos with the Tamron 17-50mm?

The 17-50 and 18-50 macro produce quality photos, as to whether they can be used professionally, that is up to the skill of the photographer. Let's just say these two lenses won't be the bottleneck. :)


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pulsar123
Goldmember
2,143 posts
Gallery: 67 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 480
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Canada
     
Nov 05, 2010 20:30 |  #8

I may be unlucky, but my recently bought Tamron had some quality issues, and when I sent it to Tamron, they wouldn't calibrate it, as it was "within their specifications". Specifically, when I shot resolution charts, I discovered that it was less sharp than my cheapest kit lens, 17-55mm non-IS, at the same apertures, in 17-24mm range. See here:

http://www.flickr.com …/30041560@N03/4​814877847/ (external link)

At the end, I think I like it, as it's pretty good for real life shots. But it's not perfect by any means. May be I'm simply spoiled by primes (I sold my 50/1.8, and still have Rokinon 85/1.4).


6D, Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, 135L, 70-200 f4L, Laowa 15mm 1:1 macro, 50mm f1.8 STM, Samyang 8mm fisheye, home studio

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,639 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 6281
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Nov 05, 2010 20:32 |  #9

There are sure to be a few lemons out there, but if you research or watch the forums over a course of years, the Tamron has a great reputation.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KayakPhotos
Goldmember
Avatar
3,287 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1937
Joined May 2008
Location: Naples, FL
     
Nov 05, 2010 20:33 as a reply to  @ pulsar123's post |  #10

I owned a Tamron 17-50 and it was an excellent lens. I ended up trading it in for the 17-55 because of the added versatility of IS and USM focusing. If you can afford the extra cash I would go for the Canon unless you are planning on getting some fast primes. The Tamron paired with say a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is a pretty good combo.

The only real weakness of the tamron is annoying sounding AF. It is slower and not as accurate in low light as my canon as well. It was fine for about 90% of normal conditions though, just louder.


Just a thought from Daniel
Gear
flickr (external link)

website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Loodachris
Senior Member
Avatar
383 posts
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Tacoma Wa
     
Nov 05, 2010 20:38 |  #11

harcosparky wrote in post #11233004 (external link)
Also the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is sharper then the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC version.

Would you mind sharing a comparison that you found on this? I'm in the process of buying this lens and would really like the VC but I have not been able to find a side by side comparison to prove this although I have heard this before.


My Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pulsar123
Goldmember
2,143 posts
Gallery: 67 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 480
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Canada
     
Nov 05, 2010 21:01 |  #12

Loodachris wrote in post #11233266 (external link)
Would you mind sharing a comparison that you found on this? I'm in the process of buying this lens and would really like the VC but I have not been able to find a side by side comparison to prove this although I have heard this before.

Here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=0 (external link)

At 50mm f2.8, VC is significantly worse.


6D, Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, 135L, 70-200 f4L, Laowa 15mm 1:1 macro, 50mm f1.8 STM, Samyang 8mm fisheye, home studio

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CountryBoy
"Tired of Goldmember label"
Avatar
5,168 posts
Joined May 2006
Location: Okie
     
Nov 05, 2010 21:05 |  #13

pulsar123 wrote in post #11233366 (external link)
Here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=0 (external link)

At 50mm f2.8, VC is significantly worse.

By the look at that test , they must have a bad copy of the non-vc also .


Hi

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
twoshadows
Liquid Nitrogen
Avatar
6,807 posts
Gallery: 117 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 2185
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Asked to leave Paradise...
     
Nov 05, 2010 21:07 |  #14

Yes.

But there's a lot more to a lens than sharpness :) .


xgender.net (external link) Miss Julia Grey (she/her/Miss)
OST, API, & MLI explained (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pulsar123
Goldmember
2,143 posts
Gallery: 67 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 480
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Canada
     
Nov 05, 2010 21:10 |  #15

CountryBoy wrote in post #11233381 (external link)
By the look at that test , they must have a bad copy of the non-vc also .

No, actually my copy of non-VC performs worse than the one they used for the test - that's why I tried to calibrate it.


6D, Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, 135L, 70-200 f4L, Laowa 15mm 1:1 macro, 50mm f1.8 STM, Samyang 8mm fisheye, home studio

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

18,435 views & 0 likes for this thread
Is the Tamron 17-50 f 2.8 a sharp lens?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Croxie
498 guests, 242 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.