Tamron 17-50 Focusing quality

I wonder that how quickly and accurately tamron 17-50 F2.8 lens focuses in comparison to canon 50mm 1.8

Even though canon 50mm has no USM it focuses very quickly and accurately and if tamron has the same capacity it would be sufficient to use for me.

I just picked up one of these. I sold my Sigma 24-70 2.8 and have noticed that the Tamron is far superior. The image quality is awesome. In terms of focus, it most likely is a little slower than the Canon 1.8, but I think it's still fast enough. It doesn't hunt and just goes right to it. It works great with the 30D.

The Tamron has a better AF than the canon 50mm 1.8. It's definitely more accurate and maybe a bit faster but I find both fast enough that it's never been an issue with me.

The focus ring on the Tamron is a lot nicer to handle as well, though I hardly use MF anyway.

Sound-wise, both are noisy. It's especially noticeable when the AF hunt and "zip" from one hand of the focus scale to the other. The Tamron may be a bit higher pitch, but in most case scenario the AF will lock quick enough that you won't be bother with the noise.

It's a great lens anyway, it hardly leaves my body. useful focal range and great constant maximum aperture. Get one!

Tamron 17-50 = twitchy AF, lousy build.

I find the Tamron's AF to be quick and reasonably accurate but noisy. Based on my experience it hunts a bit less for focus in low light than the 50/1.8 and is marginally faster to AF.

District_History_Fan wrote in post #10891858
Tamron 17-50 = twitchy AF, lousy build.

Yep. I found the AF of the Tamron to be worse than my (admittedly good) copy of the 50mm f/1.8 II. It's also very loud and hunts even in moderate light. IQ is ok - it's sharp - but the bokeh is not very good and I found the contrast from this lens to be less than good.

twoshadows wrote in post #10891895
Yep. I found the AF of the Tamron to be worse than my (admittedly good) copy of the 50mm f/1.8 II. It's also very loud and hunts even in moderate light. IQ is ok - it's sharp - but the bokeh is not very good and I found the contrast from this lens to be less than good.

I disagree with that statement. The Tamron has a great IQ, a very nice Bokeh, and the AF is decent for what it is. It's noisy but not inaccurate. Obviously, it's not gonna match a USM AF, but factor the price in: it's the best such lens you can find under $500.

Couple of shots:

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

two more...

btw, I have the "original" 17-50, not the VC version.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

nice. all but one shot wide open (f3.2). you sure put your money where your mouth is .

i've owned three tamron lenses and i thought all were great bargains for the price....obviously they don't focus like canon ring USM lenses.

and while some complain about the build of tamron lenses you don't hear much about these lenses failing mechanically and they are lightweight to boot.

ed rader

I'm going to agree with the "noisy, hunts-in-low-light, crap build but decent image quality" crowd

Edit: It was decent value for money though and I'd take it over the stupidly priced 17-55...

CEDM,

Nice shots . Bokeh at wide open, even on the lowly 50mm f/1.8 II, is almost always stellar. I'm talking about when you stop down the lens - that's when things can get quite ugly .

Also, the fact that we're comparing the AF from a roughly $500 lens to a $99 lens should say something about the tamron's AF. No offense. Good photographers take good photos regardless of gear and you've proven that, imo. But I think there are better alternatives .

Alright, so after playing around with mine in the garden, I must say it rocks! It's sharp and and focuses well. This is a crop of an image I took, about 25%.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/philtherower/4​981428864/

twoshadows wrote in post #10892056
Also, the fact that we're comparing the AF from a roughly $500 lens to a $99 lens should say something about the tamron's AF.

Well, you're trying to compare the Tamron's AF with Canon L's, so it's fair game

I just browsed through my photo collection. Haven't really seen any bad bokeh from my sets, even at higher f-stops, though i usually don't try to emphase OoF areas when i shoot narrow aperture. Did you have any aperture in mind when you say the tamron bokeh isn't good at higher f-stops?

I have the original 17-50 and have been very pleased with it.
It is a bit noisier than my Canons but it seems to focus faster in lower light better than my Canon 1.8 that I used to own. the Canon used to drive me crazy as it hunted for focus in low light situations.

I took this image the night I got the Tamron,

cedm wrote in post #10892132
Well, you're trying to compare the Tamron's AF with Canon L's, so it's fair game

I just browsed through my photo collection. Haven't really seen any bad bokeh from my sets, even at higher f-stops, though i usually don't try to emphase OoF areas when i shoot narrow aperture. Did you have any aperture in mind when you say the tamron bokeh isn't good at higher f-stops?

Actually, I haven't compared it to an L, just the lowly 50mm f/1.8 II .

Here's one of the few shots from the tamron that I kept:

1/160s f/4.5 at 50.0mm iso400

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'