Tamron 17-50 how good compared to L's

I have a 24-105 and 70-200 2.8 I would like to get something wider and I would prefer a 2.8 zoom that is not very expensive so the Tamron

comes to mind. I used to have the Tamron 28-75 2.8 which I really liked a lot but I moved to Canon L lenses and now I feel that I may be

spoiled with the focus speed of the Ls. I do remember my Tamron hunting somewhat often but the photo quality being very good.

 

Would the Tamron be a good choice? I need something just a little wider then what I have and I do like that the 17-50 is small light and 2.8

and will make a nice lens to keep on my 40D when I do move to a full frame body ( I will keep the 40D )

Is it really comparable? I mean - the Tamron lens is only usable on crop cameras while the canon L lenses are for full frame as well. It makes more sense to compare the Tamron to the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS in my opinion.

On my D300, I had the older version, w/o motor. A pretty good alternative to the Nikkor 17-55. Focus was pretty quick and it didn't stutter and jitter like my Sigmas did. Sharpness was very good, contrast not bad, but color was different. Not in a bad way, but different. I had a 28-75 as well and the two compared pretty evenly. If I remember correctly. :)

I wouldn't buy one. Although it's pretty sharp it has big chromatic aberrations and AF motor is very loud. Canon's 17-55 IS USM is a lot better and it's also f/2.8.

I know the 17-55 is a very good lens but I am looking to keep it more affordable since I will mostly use this with a 40D

when I want to travel light and still have fast glass.

 

I considered a 17-40 or an old 16-35 M1 if I can find one or even a Sigma 17-70.

Tommy, I own the Tamron (40D also) and am very pleased with it. IMHO it compares well with L lenses, I have a 70-

200 2.8 and a 400 5.6, when you shuffle the pics together I doubt anyone could pick out what came from what lens.

The focus motor is a bit loud, I don't really know why that bothers some people but it has never been an issue for

me. I don't know why someone suggested you compare them to only APS-C lenses, IQ is comparable no matter

what the source is. Chromatic abberations? Never noticed any, and photozone tested it and its only a bit high at

17mm 2.8, again, never an issue in any photos I've taken. Check here http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/289-

tamron-af-17-50mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-canon-test-report--review for Photozones test. Check here

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?

CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=398&Camera=396&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=400 for

a resolution chart comparison from Digital Picture. I've also posted a sample for you to check out.

 

[oversize image deleted - downsize before posting]

The Tamron is a fine lens. It doesn't focus silently like a canon USM lens, but it's not excessively sluggish in

focusing speed. Optically the lens is quite good, but be aware of significant sample variation. CA (chromatic

aberration) only becomes noticeable at wide-angle (17mm) with the lens set to a large aperture.

 

For the price (only $400 from Amazon), it's hard to beat this lens. Tamron offers a five-year warranty, which is

impressive for such an inexpensive lens.

My Tamron 17-50 is very sharp. Although I don't have an L lens within the range to compare to, it's probably as sharp. c/a are nothing to worry about, and when present they are easily corrected. Distortions are about average for a standard zoom and needs correction at times. There's some vignetting at f/2.8 at both the long and short end of the zoom range, again easily corrected when you shoot RAW.

 

What distinguishes L lenses from non-L lenses are not only things that are easily quantified and shown on charts and graphs in lens test reports. Color and contrast of this lens are good, substantially better than most consumer zooms, but not quite as good as a nice prime or a 70-200 L. Bokeh is not very good, very doughnut-like with light piled up at the edges. But then again this is not a thin-dof lens like a 70-200, bokeh only really shows at close focusing distances, 50 mm f/2.8. This is stretching things. If you want to take headshots at 50/2.8 either use a different lens or avoid busy background. Flare resistance is excellent, on par with L glass IMO.

 

Build quality is very good, but not quite L. I've backpacked with this lens for 6+ months though humid tropical jungle, windy beaches, etc. and it has held up very well. Will this lens still be in my bag 20 years from now, as an L lens would? Maybe, but probably not. At $400 that's but a big concern to me. I like the rubberized rings and MF is very workable. AF is loud but does the job. It's black, small, and unobtrusive.

 

So is it an L lens? No. If you want a red stripe on the barrel you'll need to look elsewhere. But it is versatile, very sharp, and allows you to take great photos. I've enlarged to 13"19" and the photos are tack sharp, corner to corner.

Image quality is comparable to L lenses. With film, there could be a difference in color rendition, but with digital, this is moot. I use one with my 20D to shoot weddings, and I use the 28-75mm on my 5D. On the latter, f2.8 at the long end of the lens is just very slightly less sharp than everything else (which is very sharp), but sharpens up nicely in post--to the point where you couldn't tell the difference. On image quality alone, I would not hesitate.

 

The other factors--build, focus accuracy, speed, and noise, and the fact that the zoom ring turns opposite from Canon zooms--are up to you whether they matter. None of them bother me. Build quality has not been an issue at all, and I don't miss any shots due to focus speed. The focus noise doesn't bother me at all, neither does the zoom ring.

 

Here's an interesting bit of information for you. When the camera (not the lens) decides to misfocus--the famous back focus problem--a Tamron lens will front focus while Canon lenses back focus.

<i>The focus motor is a bit loud, I don't really know why that bothers some people but it has never been an issue for me.</i>

<br><br>

It sounds like an engine of a tank of II world war. If I were hiring a photographer on an event I wouldn't like him to use this lens :)

I don't know Michael, I used the 11-18 and the 28-75 and they where not that loud. I have used many Nikon lenses that are

much louder then Canons and I don't see that as a problem.

 

Anyway in my case this will be used as a general walk around lens.

Tommy,

 

I've enjoyed the heck out of my 17-50. It is sharper than the Canon 17-40 I had (which was stolen), but distortion is the one thing I find myself correcting in Photoshop more than I did with the Canon. Anyway, here's a link to about 400 travel shots I took recently, mostly with the Tamron:

 

http://billowens.smugmug.com/gallery/5814398_BqwtK#P-1-12

 

Password is pineapple (I'm too lazy to remove it).

 

These are just family travel shots (little time for bracketing, tripod, etc.) with a modest level of post-processing, but I hope they will give you a "real world" feel for the lens. There are a mix of other lenses in there (11-16, 70-200, 85, 135, 400), so hover over a photo and click the "Photo Info" icon to be sure.

I recently picked up the Sigma 17-70 and so far I am very happy with it. I do not find the AF motor to be loud at all and image quality and color/contrast has been great. All in all I really like this lens, I was torn between this lens and the tammy and I am glad for the extra 20mm reach it gives.

<p>I've grown very weary of reviewers claiming the Tamron AF sounds like a chainsaw.</p>

 

<p>The AF on my Tamron 17-35 is <b>very quiet</b>. Even in a quiet room you can't hear it more than a few feet

away. It is <b>immensely</b> less loud than the mirror clatter of an SLR, so these lenses should be <b>completely

acceptable</b> at any venue which can be photographed with an SLR at all.</p>

 

<p>Ok, vented now. Thanks for your time.</p>

What does <a

href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=400&Camera=396&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=396&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=2">this</a>

tell you ?

 

<br><br>Yes, its a bit noisier than Canon USM lenses, but people fuss too much about that ... these are not

musical instruments! At 2.8 I could barely differentiate between this and my 50/1.8 and certainly not in prints.

Great walk-around lens, no regret that I bought it.

i had the 17-50 2.8 and I was pretty happy with it. I will say it was loud, and tended to hunt a little, but i was ok with it. However, there's simply no comparing it to the Ls

>I've grown very weary of reviewers claiming the Tamron AF sounds like a chainsaw<

 

Totally agree with you Alan :)

 

 

>>It sounds like an engine of a tank of II world war. If I were hiring a photographer on an event I wouldn't like him to use this lens :)<<

 

What a load of BS..In 4 decades have never been knocked back from any event because my Hassy`s clunk, flashes whirl, or lens has a focus squeal and I doubt anyone here has either, the only place I`ve ever heard wanted total silence was government sittings (romper room) where Leica was exepted. We do events for a living and the Tamron 17 50 f2.8 lives on the workhorse ( 40d ) it does a better job for us than the 17 40 L.. Time to grow up M I`II:)

BTW Tommy, only downside has been to keep fingers clear of the focus ring, as it turns during AF. Not sure if 28 75 the same. the AF motor on mine is quite quiet in one direction and a lil louder the other, certainly a lot quieter than my EF 135 SF :)

I was contemplating to get either the Canon 17-55 F2.8 or 17-40 F4L about 2 months ago.

 

I finally chose neither, and got the Tamron instead because of its competetive and low price, and good technical data/reviews from Photozone.

 

I never regretted it. The pictures are much sharper than I expected, and I love the size of the lens. The money that I saved is now going towards the new 50D.

Tho Michael, you did not say you would Not hire the photographer ? just the gross exageration of noise I objected to :)

The Tamron is the best bang-for-the-buck among 2.8 zooms.

I understand the situation you're in. I recently upgraded to a FF sensor and some expensive L lenses. But now I find myself with limited funds but still a need for a wide angle lens. I looked at the Tamron line of lenses as you have. I've seen favorable reviews on the 17-50 and the 17-35 Tamrons. If I were you, I would go for the Tamron 17-35 since this is the only one that can mount on a FF camera like the 5D (since you mentioned you're moving toward a FF soon). The 17-50 is not compatible with a FF camera.

 

---J.Park

Not a bad idea to get a 17-35 but I think the 17-50 is a bit better and I dont really like variable aperture. I wont dump my

40D when I go ff so while I prefer it work on both cameras but I can live with 1 lens thats only for the 40D. The only thing

nice about a 17-40 is that it will be a nice ultra wide on full frame but not as useful on my 40D and that is what I own

now.

 

I also like the 40D with the Tamron when I want to travel light and in places where I don't want really expensive gear and

just like the many lenses I have sold in the past I can sell this one down the road as well if needs be.

 

Thanks for all the feedback everyone.

I recently purchased one and have given it a pretty good work out over the last 3 months. For the money it is a good buy. Sharpness is good, I have to look at the EXIF data to tell which was taken with the 50 1.8 or the Tamron zoom. Looking closely, the 50mm 1.8 is a touch sharper but there's not much in it. I don't notice the focussing noise but because of the way I support my camera I often feel the focussing ring spin under my fingures. The colours seem more vivid, as if it has a touch of a polarising element in it, but this might be because with a wide angle I get a bit more sky in my shots. I haven't had any focussing problems, but haven't done any testing either. With the 50 1.8 I'm used to hearing the AF give a bump each time I AF, but the Tamron stays silent, even though the distance changes slightly, but this doesn't seem to affect the AF performance, the shots are still sharp. Build quality seems good, not L quality, but there's no sloppiness or wobbles in the zoom or focus rings. I'm pleasantly surprised by mine.

Neill Farmer

Tammy 17-50 is superb when you compare the investment made in the purchase.

Good images... no complaints.