Tamron 17-50 non-vc performance within the 17-25mm range?

Title says it all. Looking to buy a zoom lens like this for my 60D, and I will primarily be using it within the 17-25mm focal range. This will be used for video work too, paired with a Glidecam (which is just like a steadicam). How's the barrel distortion and sharpness within that range for the Tamron? This will be my first zoom lens, as my kit has only been primes.

HansSteinert wrote in post #12414913
Title says it all. Looking to buy a zoom lens like this for my 60D, and I will primarily be using it within the 17-25mm focal range. This will be used for video work too, paired with a Glidecam (which is just like a steadicam). How's the barrel distortion and sharpness within that range for the Tamron? This will be my first zoom lens, as my kit has only been primes.

you compare lens specs for different focal lengths and apertures at

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …&FLI=0&API=0&Le​nsComp=398

or

www.photozone.de

For me the 17-25 mm focal length on the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc is good but I don't have video (or a glidecam!)


XSi (450D) with Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc

at 17mm

Looks like a winner, especially for the price. I was mostly concerned about barrel distortion since sharpness doesn't matter too much for 1080p, but both look great.

HansSteinert wrote in post #12415337
Looks like a winner, especially for the price. I was mostly concerned about barrel distortion since sharpness doesn't matter too much for 1080p, but both look great.

if barrel distortion at 17mm is a concern look at wide angle zooms like the Canon 10-22 - they are better with barrel distortion than the standard focal length "crop" zooms

My copy seems soft at the corners:

17mm at f/8, RAW convert without PP:
http://imageshack.us …my-images/98/dsc3857.jpg/

100% crop of bottom left corner:
http://imageshack.us/f​/151/dsc38573.jpg/

At f/2.8 it's even blurrier. I'm not sure if I just have a bad copy.

riotshield wrote in post #12415576
My copy seems soft at the corners:

17mm at f/8, RAW convert without PP:
http://imageshack.us …my-images/98/dsc3857.jpg/

100% crop of bottom left corner:
http://imageshack.us/f​/151/dsc38573.jpg/

At f/2.8 it's even blurrier. I'm not sure if I just have a bad copy.

I don't know but for me, shooting at f2.8 at 17mm with the Tamron 17-50 it looks good. But I don't usually look at 100% crops!

XSi (450D) with Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc

at f2.8 at 17mm

Tokina 12-24 f4 is good. I once compared its sharpness @ 24mm with my other lens @ 24 mm. Tokina lost hands down. Therefore I feel, going by reputation & data on net - canon 17-55 and 16-35 should be excellent in this range. Given all these choices, I will stick to Tokina for this range.

ssmanak wrote in post #12418035
Tokina 12-24 f4 is good. I once compared its sharpness @ 24mm with my other lens @ 24 mm. Tokina lost hands down. Therefore I feel, going by reputation & data on net - canon 17-55 and 16-35 should be excellent in this range. Given all these choices, I will stick to Tokina for this range.

For use with a glidecam the Tamron 17-50 would win hands down - it's the lightest of the lenses mentioned here and weight wise comparable to primes. I've tried a steadicam with a L zoom (28-70) and the weight gets uncomfortable quickly. The combo of price and IQ make the Tamron a winner and esp if weight is important.

My 17-50 non-vc is well on the way to becoming my favourite lens. Cheap, light, and crazy sharp throughout the whole range. It's a winner!

I have the Tamron 17-50 VC and I fly it on a glidecam 1000 HD with pretty good results. Naturally on the GlideCam I turn off the VC. It's a bit soft on the corners wide open but stopped just a bit down (something you'll probably want to do with a glidecam anyways) and it's more than sharp enough for video.

Remember that you'll have to re-balance if you tweak the zoom so keep it in mind (it has a zoom lock at 17mm but none for any other zoom level) before you waste 20 minutes balancing for the wrong zoom

I used to have the 17-50 and it was a great lens. Definitely a good buy for the price!