Tamron 17-50 how good compared to L's

[15sunrises]

The 17-50 is a fantastic lens if you aren't planning on going 100% full frame. Take the 'third party lenses aren't worth getting' comments with a grain of salt. For the vast vast majority of all applications the Tamron will perform just as well as a first party lens. I have this lens, and even peering at pixels at 100%, I'm usually very very satisfied.

[j_smith6]

ok Chris, imagine the situation: you're in the dark church (wedding), there really is not much light available, for some

reason everybody's silent for a moment and you want to take a picture. Tamron 17-50 starts hunting the focus... from

closest position to infinity... dzzzzwrrrrr dzzzzwrrrr, everybody's looking at you, annoying - isn't it? :) OK, I'm

exaggerating but I've tried this lens once and that's what I remember - the sound of AF motor. It's like a trauma which

is going to stay in my brain forever. I'm not saying that you can't use 17-50 because image quality it produces is

really good and usually nobody will even hear its motor. And I think it's better than 17-40 on a 40D. EF 17-40

produces really soft images wide open and is one stop slower so 17-50 is a better choice. If I didn't use film camera

from times to times I would never buy 17-40/4 but they could put a better motor in 17-50/2.8...

 

I don't want to grow up. S#!t - I really don't want to be that old. When I turn 18 in few months I'm going to change date

on my computer to July 2008 :P thanks for reminding me I'm that old... -.-

[manuel barrera houston,]

I own the lens but my daughter has it, it is an excellent lens for the price, sound is relative and if you don't like the buzzing can always do manual focus which is what my daughter does not because of the sound but because she prefers to focus manually and totally agree with Michael above got rid of 17-40 a long time ago. I use primes for wide.

[chrisjb]

Michael, enjoy your youth, I for one generally like to hear from a younger perspective as my youngest is 18, you guys have so much oppertunity to learn so much quicker than most older folks did. I grew up with a 50 1.4 in every system I`ve had and would not venture into a low light situation without one, I`m positive the OP Tommy knows likewise. with a slow f2.8 either use MF or leave your fly half down for better expressions :)

 

cheers

[Brad_]

The Tamron 17-50 has become my only lens used for SP.<P>

<center>

<img src= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images29/Silver.jpg">

</center>

[richard_lyman]

Two points which may or may not be valid. A: I don't believe the Tamron has IS as the Canon's do. Not sure on that but it's pretty useful. B: Due to this lens popularity it can be difficult to find and may have to back ordered. I was going to buy this lens a few months ago and couldn't find it anywhere with out having to wait weeks for it. I ended it up getting a Canon 17-55 EFS 2.8. I don't regret it now, but it was pricey!

[sergiu]

I bought this lens a few weeks ago to go with my still great working nikon d50.I've had a canon 40D with the 17-55 IS.Good camera, great lens, no doubt.However i prefer nikons and i bought the tamron beacause nikon's 17-55 is over 1000$ so....no.It's not as well built as the canon or nikon but still one can't complain.Other than that , I know it makes a squeeky noise, but it only makes it on canons.I'm guessing it's the different focusing system .on my camera it sounds just like any other lens.it's pretty quiet.Sharpness wise , it's at least decent if not very good.

[dotun famakinwa]

Tommy,

 

You should check out the images captured by Michael Brisbane. The link to his portfolio is attached. He used Tamron 28-

75 for a good chunk of his shots and they are quite impressive. I believe a few were also taken with the 17-50

 

 

http://www.photo.net/photos/michaelhills

[tdigi]

WOW! Dotun his stuff is really nice. I liked the Tamron 11-18 and the 28-75 and I did not sell either for bad performance

and when I move to a full frame ( probably not til spring ) this can stay on the 40D as an inexpensive small walk around

option. I tested one out and I was very impressed with how small it is.

[roger_smith4]

The focus is only loud when it hunts from end to end. Help it out by picking a high contrast edge and you won't have this issue. In very low light you'll need to use the flash focus assist. Focus on the Canons is probably faster and better, but at what price?

[tdigi]

Yes the Canons are much better at focusing faster but on the wide end there is not a lot from Canon unless A you want to

spend a lot ( 17-55 2.8 or 16-35 2.8 or B you want slow ( 17-85 or 18-55 )

[daverhaas]

I have the 17-50 for my Nikon D300 - Never had a problem in low light with it hunting...of course I haven't tried it in pitch dark yet! ;-)

 

To me the noise of the af is minor compared to thud of the mirror slap, shutter fire and re-cock.

 

The lens itself is a dream. Images are crisp and sharp and it has excellent Bokeah.

 

Dave

[joe_nash1]

Does anyone own the Pro Master version of this lens? I know that Tamron makes lenses for Promaster, just getting

your take on that version.

[tim_knight]

Tom, My D50's shutter draws more attention than my 17-50 auto focus. Infact I can not think of anytime it turned a head in the four months I have had it. I really like my 50/1.8 for sharpness but I am very happy with the sharpness of my Tamron.

[eric_arnold]

"OK, I'm exaggerating but I've tried this lens once and that's what I remember - the sound of AF motor. It's like a trauma which is going to stay in my brain forever."

 

i hate to think what walking past a construction site or childhood trips to the dentist must have done to your apparently trauma-prone noggin. how have you managed to live all these years without killing yourself?

 

seriously this is really over the top. i use the 17-50 on a nikon d300 and it rarely hunts at all. great IQ, even better cost/benefit. not surprised at stodgy responses as we get the same thing in nikon forum. but results tend to speak for themselves.<div></div>

[diane_stredicke]

I'm getting a Tammy 17-50 today from Amazon. I'm going to compare it to my 17-40. It it is as good, bye bye 17-40, hello 2.8!

[diane_stredicke]

Tested my new Tammy 17-50 and have decided to sell my 17-40 L.... It's that good.

[tdigi]

I was just at Helix testing it out and I don't know who is saying its loud and slow to focus, its pretty quite as far as I can

tell. Its also built very well and about the size of the kit lens.

 

I hear Tamron is making an UW that is 10-24 that will be under $500 as well.

[diane_stredicke]

Well it makes more noise than say the 17-40 L. But not THAT much noise.

[yakim_peled1]

I recently did a quick test of my friend's 17-50 vs. my 17-55. Optics and AF speed in good light were about comparable and I was surprised to see how small and light it is. However, low light AF speeds were dramatically different. It took the Tamron about 1 to 1.5 seconds! To me that's completely unacceptable. Thus, if your walkaround consists of low light and you don't want to MF I'd have to recommend against it.

 

And yes, when it focused it did sound pretty awful….

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[Brad_]

The choice was clear to me trying both... The Tamron with outstanding performance. And 1/3 the price, and greatly smaller in

size and weight compared to the Canon. A no-brainer if you do street photography...

 

As far as AF sound goes, that's such a non-issue - camera shutter/mirror noise is several times louder...

[quenched]

I have shot with this lens quite a bit. <br>

Its a great lens, sharp, light, cheap.<br>

It hunts in low light.<br>

Not sure if some examples are better than others...

[chrisjb]

`Not sure if some examples are better than others...`

 

That could be possible as in all brands, mine only gets used in low light, upto 3~400 pics/wk, only use center FP and makes sure a contrast line for AF, rarely hunts anymore than most lenses :)

[songtsen]

<p><i>"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"</i></p>

 

<p>Tommy, how good was the 28-75 compared to the 24-105L? The 17-50 would probably be similar.</p>

[steve_eichorn]

I have the Tamron, it's the lens I got with my XT. About 7,500 shots on it. Relatively sharp, but I found quite a bit of Chromatic Aberration seen when enlarged over 6X8. It seems better now with my 40D. You get what you pay for (mostly, [see below]) so I have kept it. I also have a Canon 70-200f/4 L lens and hope to find in the near future, something wide angle with IQ comparable to the Canon. I bought the Tamron for $429 and the Canon with collar for $500. so I have been hesitant on buying anything but "L" glass, mainly for image sharpness. I have seen what a quality lens can do and that's what I'm looking for. Long story short, I would grade the Tamron a "B-" as in "it's OK, but there is better out there.