Question about the Tamron 17-50

I'm looking to replace my 18-55 kit lens on my Rebel, which I've had since last year. I'm doing rather more low light/indoor photography than I anticipated and would like something faster that will also provide sharper images too. Ideally it would be the Canon 17-55 IS, but realistically, having just done my budget for this year, I'm not going to be able to afford it for a very long time, especially having just bought a longer reach zoom. I've been reading good things about the Tamron 17-50, which is significantly less expensive than the Canon, but it doesn't have IS. I love the IS on my longer zoom.

The new lens would be the everyday walkabout lens, so I'd much prefer a zoom over a prime, and it would also be used indoors, hence the need for a 2.8. Is the Tamron a good choice and, for those of you who have it, does the lack of IS make a big difference? I've checked out the archive on this lens and the photos are terrific. In the past I've lost a few good shots because of camera shake, but maybe the faster glass compensates for lack of IS in some indoor situations - does it? If the Tamron isn't a good choice, can you suggest anything else? Main subjects are my kid, my dogs, travel photos, dog sports, that kind of thing. I'd have liked a little more reach than 50 mm, but can manage with that range now that I have my other lens. Target price under $500, and the further under, the better. Thanks!

Hey ceegee, i own the tammy 17-50 for more than a year now and i love it. It stays on my 30d all of the time. I have used the 17-40 L and i what i can say is the tammy is par with the quality sometimes even better. The canon 17-40 focuses faster and is built better but it cost twice as much. I have used the 24-70 which i prefer using on weddings and modeling but it is quite on the heavy side. Check out the reviews in google and the samples here. https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=209580
Try the lens out first in your local camera store and see if you like it. Good luck.

I'd say the Tamron would be a great choice.
I use to have the Tamron 28-75 and I loved it. Trouble is on my crop 30D body I kept finding that I wanted it to be wider for a walk around. I traded it for the Tamron 17-50 and i'm very happy.

I too really wanted (and will someday get) the Canon 17-55 but for now the Tamron does it great job and it's a great price.

As for lack of IS of course it would be nice to have but the IS really comes into play on the longer lens. Also this being a 2.8 it's going to let a lot of light in anyway and remember the IS won't help with kids, dogs and dog sports if things are moving.

I would strongly recommend the Tamron.

Since i own this lens it stays on my 30D all the time, its wonderful lens in my opinion. If you dont mind loud AF and that focus ring turns while AF works its best you can get for the money. I think the lack of IS isnt that huge problem, indoor you can hold camera against a wall or some other object that doesnt move, kinda reduce camera shake.

I think the tamron 17-50 is a very good lens. I purchased this lens with the intent of using it for indoor martial arts stuff, ie low light, large room, fast action.

You can look at my zenfolio gallery, in my sig below. Almost all of the flowers, animals and places photos were taken with that lens within the last month, many of them done indoors.

I replaced my kit lens with the Tamron 17-50 which, like you, I use indoors quite often to make shots of the kids and pets, etc. The f/2.8 is great. But rather than worry about whether you need IS, why not get an inexpensive flash like the Speedlite 430EX to go with the Tammy? My 400D, 17-50, and 430EX make a great indoors combo.

It's a great lens. It was my first lens and even though it's been replaced mostly by the 24-105L now, it still takes great pictures when I do decide to use it.

[QUOTE=chrisb321;53891​60]As for lack of IS of course it would be nice to have but the IS really comes into play on the longer lens. Also this being a 2.8 it's going to let a lot of light in anyway and remember the IS won't help with kids, dogs and dog sports if things are moving.quote]

IS is very handy for slow shutter speeds, with ANY focal length. I have photos on POTN that prove that point. https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=3261734&po​stcount=47
But IS certainly has no use for any subject motion!

the only lens i have on my camera as of now and i think its great.

Dave Ringkor wrote in post #5389349
But rather than worry about whether you need IS, why not get an inexpensive flash like the Speedlite 430EX to go with the Tammy? My 400D, 17-50, and 430EX make a great indoors combo.

I already have the 430EX; it was the first thing I bought after the Rebel kit, and I love it. Makes a huge difference.

It sounds like the Tamron might be a good choice; all the comments from current owners are positive, which is a good sign!

Don't have to think twice about buying it. You won't regret it. Its a great lens and it was my first lens. Took some awesome pictures with it. The AF is noisy, but personally i don't even hear it anymore...its become a part of the lens to where i'm not even aware of it happening. This is the only drawback that i can think of for this lens, which compared to the quality it produces is very small.

Wilt wrote in post #5389521
IS is very handy for slow shutter speeds, with ANY focal length. I have photos on POTN that prove that point. https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=3261734&po​stcount=47
But IS certainly has no use for any subject motion!

Well my point was IS is more benifical on longer lenses than short
Theoretically at 250mm you need to be hand shooting 1/250 or faster without IS but with a 4 stop IS you can get down to 1/15
With a 15mm wide you can shoot handheld at 1/15 but IS is not going to be able to take you down 4 stops to 1 second.

To the OP's point he is not going to miss IS on a 2.8 17-50 as much as he would on say a 70-200, either 2.8 or 4

ceegee wrote in post #5388922
I'm looking to replace my 18-55 kit lens on my Rebel, which I've had since last year. I'm doing rather more low light/indoor photography than I anticipated and would like something faster that will also provide sharper images too. Ideally it would be the Canon 17-55 IS, but realistically, having just done my budget for this year, I'm not going to be able to afford it for a very long time, especially having just bought a longer reach zoom. I've been reading good things about the Tamron 17-50, which is significantly less expensive than the Canon, but it doesn't have IS. I love the IS on my longer zoom.

The new lens would be the everyday walkabout lens, so I'd much prefer a zoom over a prime, and it would also be used indoors, hence the need for a 2.8. Is the Tamron a good choice and, for those of you who have it, does the lack of IS make a big difference? I've checked out the archive on this lens and the photos are terrific. In the past I've lost a few good shots because of camera shake, but maybe the faster glass compensates for lack of IS in some indoor situations - does it? If the Tamron isn't a good choice, can you suggest anything else? Main subjects are my kid, my dogs, travel photos, dog sports, that kind of thing. I'd have liked a little more reach than 50 mm, but can manage with that range now that I have my other lens. Target price under $500, and the further under, the better. Thanks!

I have it. It's a great lens at a great price. Go for it!
I decided to buy the Tamron 17-50 & the Canon 10-22 together for the same price as the Canon 17-55 IS alone.

The Tamron was my choice when I ordered my 30D body just a few weeks ago. It's a great lens and I haven't even really thought about the fact that it does not have IS. I suppose it would be nice and help in some shooting situations, but I haven't had a moment yet where I said to myself "Gee I wish this had IS." However, I have said to myself "Gee I wish I had a fancy flash."

Pretty much all of my 30D shots (except for one I think) in my Flickr are with the Tamron if you want to browse.
Oh yeah and yes, I do greatly recommend it for a "budget" kit lens replacement. It's very high quality.

chrisb321 wrote in post #5390164
Well my point was IS is more benifical on longer lenses than short
Theoretically at 250mm you need to be hand shooting 1/250 or faster without IS but with a 4 stop IS you can get down to 1/15
With a 15mm wide you can shoot handheld at 1/15 but IS is not going to be able to take you down 4 stops to 1 second.

To the OP's point he is not going to miss IS on a 2.8 17-50 as much as he would on say a 70-200, either 2.8 or 4

I understand the point you are making. I did get improvement from 1/25 to 1/6, and my example even shows a somewhat acceptable result at 1/3, though! Not every telephoto can achieve 4EV improvement, as the earlier ones are only 2EV, you must admit.