New Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC Vs EF-S 17-55

[tomsphotography1664882219]

<p>I need a new lens for my 40D. The primary uses will be for weddings and portraiture. I need the 2.8 for the obvious low light capabilities.<br>

The old Tamron 2.8 non vc has some very poor reviews for its build and focusing issues. Though would appear to do well on IQ. I have read only two reviews so far on the new vc version and they would appear to suggest both these issues have been modified for the better.<br>

I would love to save myself £200 which is the price difference in Canon Vs Tamron but can not afford to loose shots through bad focus issues.<br>

Has anyone yet tested or bought the new Tamron VC or should I stick with the Canon 17-55 2.8?<br>

Any thoughts please.</p>

 

[jeffrey_synn]

<p>If "it just works" is that important, why not just take the Canon? You'll get ring USM with full time manual focus override, which is a pretty nice perk considering what you need it for. Like a ninja--quiet, swift and precise. (I own the EF-S 17-55.)</p>

<p>I'd take ring USM on every lens Canon makes if only they would offer that option more widely, it is a joy to use.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>AFAIK the only T17-50/2.8 VC on the market at the moment has a Nikon mount. You'll have to wait a bit for the Canon version, it's in the works.</p>

<p>I have both the C17-55 and the T17-50 non-VC. The build quality of the T17-50 is very good. Nice and compact, nice big rubber zoom and focus rings, not that different from the Canon. I've used it skiing at -20C and in humid jungles at +40C, no problem at all. Windy beaches with sand blowing, no problem. Many months bouncing around in my backpack while traveling and it has held up well. I expect the VC version to have similar build quality. As for AF, it's loud and moderately fast. Accurate for static shots but don't expect to track fast action.</p>

<p>The Canon has an extra 5 mm. AF is silent and pretty much instantaneous. The AF is very accurate and almost seems to guess where you want the focus while the Tamron takes a bit more "steering". The Canon has fulltime manual AF override. The IS is very, very effective. I've handheld shots up to 0.5 s at 50 mm and they came out sharp. I've seen handheld shots up to 2 s on the net, tack sharp. Mind you at those speeds the keeper ratio isn't very good. But it's possible and that's amazing.</p>

<p>In short, the Tamron is excellent bang for the buck, highly recommended. The Canon costs more but you get more too. Whether that's worth it to you, only you can decide.</p>

[tomsphotography1664882219]

<p>Thanks for the responses. I don't believe this is faik as it is being sold by one of the UK's biggest camera sellers <a href="http://www.jessops.com/online.store/categories/Accessories/Camera%20Accessories/Lenses/products/Tamron/SP%2017-50mm%20VC%20Di%20II%20Lens%20for%20Canon-76776/Show.html">http://www.jessops.com/online.store/categories/Accessories/Camera%20Accessories/Lenses/products/Tamron/SP%2017-50mm%20VC%20Di%20II%20Lens%20for%20Canon-76776/Show.html</a> <br>

The question was is the new one with vc any better than the old?</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>Ring USM means faster, and possibly more accurate, AF. I would not give that up. My 2 year experience with the 17-55/2.8 IS has been a very enjoyable one. I even gave up the 35/1.4 L and Sigma 50/1.4 as they became redundant. In short, it is highly recommended.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[wgpinc]

<p>I use the Canon 17-55mm lens and second what Yakim said. The non-VR Tamron 17-50mm is really a good lens. I tried it and still may get one for backup. Great image quality and no focus problems. I think the internet chatter is colored by people who don't know how to focus their cameras a lot of the time. I'm also sure that the newer VR version of the lens is very good as well. It comes down to how much you want to spend. For me the Canon 17-55mm 2.8 and the 10-22mm are so good that they are excellent reasons to keep using the crop Canon cameras. Good luck. </p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>OK so Jessops has a price but it's not available for pickup. Maybe you can preorder? Maybe you can call them to find out?</p>

<p>Tamron says this:<br>

http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/1750_vc_b005.asp<br>

click on the Specifications tab. It says: Canon coming soon.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>I have the old Tamron, never had problems with the focusing, recently used it at a family gathering with the 7D in very low light no problem focusing. I am waiting for the VC version to come out to purchase it, comes with a hood and six year warranty and about $400 less then the Canon version that comes without a hood. Here is a link to some reviews from people that own the lens and use it http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=308&sort=7&cat=43&page=1 I think some times from the reviews that the focusing problems are more a photographers lack of knowledge on how to best use the camera and lens. Here is a link for more traditional testing of lens http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/289-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-canon-test-report--review</p>

[danield]

<blockquote>

<p>The old Tamron 2.8 non vc has some very poor reviews for its build and focusing issues</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think those "very poor reviews" are grossly mistaken IMHO. Yes, the Tamron doesn't have silent FTM focus and it's not a Canon, but both build quality and AF are quite good for the price. I've been using the Tamron for close to two years, and I've never had any problems with the focus not falling where it should. The lens focuses quite fast, if a bit noisy - and having a very short focus throw helps. Build-wise, I had the lens fell from my backpack on hard asphalt a couple of months ago and that didn't seem to throw it off in any way, it's still working just as well.<br>

So I would not separate the Canon and the Tamron on build quality or AF accuracy in particular. The Canon is better because it has IS, which is quite important. The silent ring USM is also nice, and can be useful in some situations, but otherwise optically the Tamron is very good for its price and can be a lighter alternative to the Canon.<br>

Don't want to sound like I'm overly praising the Tamron, I just think that calling it very poor on the build or AF department is not quite doing it justice.</p>

 

[yog_sothoth]

<p>For general use I would go for the Tamron. For professional use the Canon.</p>

<p>Dumb question, but for weddings and portraits, would something like a 24-70 be better on a crop body? Ending at 50 of 55 seems short.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>There are no L lens in the crop department, the 24-70 is a 38.4-112mm, a little long for the wide shots. I have too many lens including L lens and would not hestitate to use the Tamron 17-55 for a paying job. I don't have much need for it as I normally take my full frame camera and the 24-70L or 70-200L , now that I have the 7D which I find to be as good as my 5D in the noise department I will be taking the Tamron out more often, but will buy the Tamron Vibration Compensation lens when it comes out. </p>

[tomsphotography1664882219]

<p>Thanks for all your responses so far. As usual these all seem pretty similar to previouse posts on these two lenses. I get the feeling that from you are saying the VC should be a winner but my original Q still remains that this with the new price will only be £200 differnce to the Canon. Geuss I'll have to wait till a few reviews have been done.<br>

24-70L is, for me, not wide enough on a crop body. Thanks though!</p>

 

[markonestudios]

Nadine on the wedding forum is a pro wedding photographer and uses the Tamron 17-50. I hope she can pipe in here too :)

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>I did have severe focus problems with the Tamron 17-50 (and yes, the lens was thoroughly tested on three different bodies). However, my third copy works great and I love it. Just as sharp as the Canon 17-40 I was thinking about buying. Build quality good, and the non-USM focus motor is reasonably quick and quiet. </p>

[tomsphotography1664882219]

<p>Hmm, Craig thanks for that. Perhaps it's the thought of going through three lenses before getting a good one that puts me off the Tamron!</p>

[picturesque]

<p>I would say that if you have the money, buy the Canon lens. If you can't, for whatever reason, bring yourself to pay the amount needed for the Canon lens (the IS has been known to go out), you will have to deal with a suitable substitute, and this particular Tamron lens fills that role very nicely.</p>

<p>If you don't want to deal with testing and getting 'a good one', there is always buying used from someone who is also a photographer. Tamron's sometimes variable QC is well known, so you will probably get an immediate answer or be provided with samples, if you ask the seller about lens sharpness and calibration. I bought my copy of this lens used, and was provided with sample images. The only downside to this is that you don't get the 6 year warranty, as it is not transferable.</p>

<p>I also use the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 on my 5D professionally, and I have two copies of this lens because I beat the first one to death. The first copy I bought used, the second, new. After the first one came back from repair, it was as good as new. The new lens was great out of the box. Pay your money and take your chance...</p>

<p>Otherwise, for both lenses, I am not bothered by the (supposedly) slower autofocus. Sometimes I think people just think it is slower because it isn't USM, and is noisier. I think the autofocus grabs nicely, and haven't found that these lenses are any more prone to hunt in low light than an L lens, which I also have. In fact, the L lenses, I think, are sometimes too quick to decide on a focus plane which is sometimes off (in low light).</p>

<p>I also like the smaller and lighter form of these lenses.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>

<p dir="ltr">The 17-50 (non-VC) copy I tried was not supposedly slower, it was horrifically slower. Outdoors it was as quick as my 17-55 but indoors it took it ~1 sec. to get focus lock. My 17-55 did it much quicker (~0.2 sec.). The owner of the lens told me that this his third copy, and all AF'ed the same.

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

 

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

 

[picturesque]

<p>Yakim's experience could very well be representative of all the Tamron copies. I wouldn't know, because when I am using it for weddings, I mostly have a flash on the camera, and use focus assist. Even if one didn't use the flash, the focus assist could be used. When I am shooting without flash, I mostly have my fast aperture primes on the camera. So it all goes back to what specific use you will put the lens to. You can't have 'everything' in a lens that is half or less the price of the Canon 17-55mm--there have got to be compromises. You just need to evaluate whether those compromises make any difference to you for your particular uses.</p>

[tomsphotography1664882219]

<p>Again, thanks for all your useful comments.<br />Nadine it is useful if not surprising to know that a pro is using this lens for pro shoots.<br />The original question still remains though!....... has anyone tried out the new Tamron VC version yet?<br />Have Tamron made any modifications to the glass or build or is the only new addition the VC?</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Tom--I am not alone in using these two Tamron lenses for pro wedding shoots. In the case of the 28-75mm, I deliberately chose it over the Canon 24-70mm because I wanted a bit more on the long end, plus the weight and size of the Tamron was more to my liking. Again--ask yourself how <strong>you</strong> are going to use the lens.</p>

<p>As for the VC version, it is probably too new. You may have to wait a bit for hands on reviews of that particular version. I doubt that the glass itself is modified, but I could be wrong.</p>

[dhhensler]

<p>My Tamron 17-50 VC just shipped from B&H... Should be here early next week! I'll post up some samples and give my less-than-expert opinion later on!</p>

[tomsphotography1664882219]

<p>Thanks David, look forward to it.</p>

[henry_l]

<p>David,<br>

Any news to report on your new 17-50 VC?</p>

[luke_darma]

<p>I love both lenses and did an in-depth comparison between the two. I compared sharpness, chromatic aberration, vignetting, distortion as well as build quality.</p>

<p>If you'd like to see the full comparison, go to: http://www.tamronlensreview.com/tamron1750vcvscanon1755is</p>

<p>Hope this helps,</p>

<p>Luke</p>

[Brad_]

I've used a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for two years and it's a superb lens. Use it for street photography and

street portraits. No issues with AF - plenty fast enough. Less than half the price of the Canon 17-55.

Smaller and lighter as well. Easy choice for me. It has been a superb lens; love the way portraits are

rendered.

 

Comes with a hood (extra for the Canon); rarely use it because the lens is so flare resistant. And a case,

and 6 year warranty.

 

 

No experience with the VC version though...