Mini review: Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC

[rogklee]

hard to compare two different lenses at different focal lengths as well!!

[chrisbevan4]

hard to compare two different lenses at different focal lengths as well!!

Very true! 50 vs 55. Will see how I go.

Hopefully I may learn how to get the best out the Tamron 17-50

[Gluggy]

Just picked up a second hand Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (with focus motor but no VC). I'm excited to give it a work out but first impressions are good. Picture quality, as Tony said, leaves the Nikon kit zoom for dead (I know, its not apples with apples) but I see this as a definate upgrade for me.

The focus motor seems a little harsh and is slower than some of the high end Nikkor lenses I've had the pleasure to try out, but for the price I can not grumble. As soon as I've got a few daylight shots with it I'll stick them up and I might even stick up the same test shot from my now redundant Nikon kit lens as a comparison.

[chrisbevan4]

I have taken a few images, but I think I'll do a fair and equal test
and will use tripod and remote a try to get the best I can from both lens of the same thing to see for sure. May not get time until the weekend.

I wasn't very successful, with closeups with tamron 17-50 non VC!

But I have found it very good as a walk around lens, and have taken some good photos

[Palomine]

I was semi-talked into this lens (non VC version) by my local shop for an upcoming wedding. Could not be happier. Sharp as can be. Noisy AF but I don't think it is slow. I think the noise just makes it sound slow, if that makes any sense.

Great lens IMO.

BTW I begged the bride and groom to get a professional photographer

[sky]

I have the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and it is a great lens, very sharp. So I would think this will be great.

[michael_sa]

I have the non VC (Vibration Compensation) version and love it.
I find it very sharp & it produces great bokeh.

A few people have questioned the sharpness at F2.8
Here are two (full res) jpgs I just shot, straight from camera*
(* Nikon D200: Sat +, Sharp +, Tone + (it's 'Custom Bank D' - my no processing/dead head mode))
Both taken bouncing the SB600 at 50mm F2.8 (ISO100, 1/60)
DSC_3509.JPG 3872x2592 3.75MB focus: eye
DSC_3510.JPG 3872x2592 3.09MB focus: nose
There are more (straight from camera) full res shots here taken with a Fuji S5 Pro using that same lens.
It may be a little short at the top end (50mm) but I'm very happy with it.

Michael

[rwg717]

A really informative little review....well done, I like the sample images too, you seem to be getting right inside the eye of the cat, I had no idea there was so much detail in there
Richard

[abitfishy]

Although I'm not much of a tog, may I also add I can get bright, sharp pics straight from the camera, something I've never been able to do with 'kit' lenses. And at $300 (or $350, can't remember) for the original non VC model second hand, great value.

[beaco]

You have some great pics there. I'm thinking about a 550d with this lens rather than the kit lens. Given the kit lens is only $80 or so - is it worth getting both?

[maccaroneski]

Beaco if the kit lens is the same focal length, I wouldn't bother. Spend that 80 bucks on a good polariser.

A tip:the Tamron has a 72mm filter thread. Get yourself a 77mm filter and step down ring: that way, if you ever get pro glass with a 77mm filter thread, you'll be good to go. I made this mistake and on a later purchase, my current filter doesn't fit.

[beaco]

I decided to forget about the kit lens. Ordered this Tamron lens instead along with a Marumi 72mm DHG CPL filter. I guess if I get a pro lens I'l just need a new filter. Filter was only about $60 anyway so not too much of an issue.

Looking forward to testing out this setup when it arrives.

[mikew09]

Purchased the non-VC copyof this lens about 6 months ago and I am very happy with it - a very sharp and useful lens. Spends about 50% of the time on my camera. Very happy with it. Bought it just before the VC was released in au and was cheap at the time.
Did read a review tht said the VC was a tad off as sharp as the non VC but that was oly one review. Have not missed the VC in use but I would think it would only improve this great lens.

[mikew09]

I decided to forget about the kit lens. Ordered this Tamron lens instead along with a Marumi 72mm DHG CPL filter. I guess if I get a pro lens I'l just need a new filter. Filter was only about $60 anyway so not too much of an issue.

Looking forward to testing out this setup when it arrives.

Beaco, just be mindful of the impact of a cheap filter. I gave filters away after some ordinary experiences with cheaper UV filters and now choose to always use the hood on my lens regardless - I do have a CP filter but I paid an embarrasing fee for it and it certainly wasn't on the cheap end of the market. I have since done a sacraficial destroying of my evil, evil cheap filters (not really - I gave them to a fellow who bought my kit lens). So, test with and without so as to ensure the filter is not giving a false impression of the quality of the lens as I can assure, this is a very sharp lens.

I think you will enjoy this lens.

[beaco]

The CPL filter in question seemed to get good reviews so I'm hoping it's ok.

Camera has arrived so I know what I'll be doing on the weekend. Yay!

[stillie]

Nice review maccaroneski.

I bought one of these today as a "Street Lens" to go with a 50D also bought today to replace the Oly E-30 I was disappointed with. So far with a limited number of shots due to dull late afternoon light I am very pleased. Have added a general test shot (HDR) taken @ ISO 200, 17mm, f/5.59. Black in top RH corner is part of verandah. This lens has great potential.

[beaco]

grrr. Rainy and busy weekend meant not much photo taking. Camera and lens seem excellent so far though.

[PerfectPicture]

Hi,

thanks for the review and pictures , very nicely done.

l'm also considering this lens "Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di-II VC LD Aspherical (IF) Lenses " for my a wedding in 5 weeks time.

Do you or others have any test pictures at the 17mm side as well? as would be good to see that as well.
is this lens good for wedding photography and in the church, indoors, etc as well?
also fast enough to capture Great portraits shots with great Bohek as well?

was looking at this one or the sigma one or even the canon 17-40L f4 (but 1 stop difference). not sure, decisions .. decisions!? lol

thanks

Robert

[Flash Hit]

Fantastic Lens on my 7D. Nice and sharp. I dropped the first one I bought (3 weeks old!) so I had to buy a second ($553 with a free UV 72mm filter) delivered to my door. It was the only thing I did not have on the list of extras. I have since sacked my insurance company (QBE) because they refused the claim and my new insurance policy does not require any list! Back to the lens, great for just about any situation where the bigger zooms are not required.

[PerfectPicture]

Fantastic Lens on my 7D. Nice and sharp. I dropped the first one I bought (3 weeks old!) so I had to buy a second ($553 with a free UV 72mm filter) delivered to my door. It was the only thing I did not have on the list of extras. I have since sacked my insurance company (QBE) because they refused the claim and my new insurance policy does not require any list! Back to the lens, great for just about any situation where the bigger zooms are not required.

Thanks Greg for your response! Shame you dropped the first one , and being an accident the insurance company should honour your claim!? thats harsh mate! Tell them that's Un-Australian! haha

Can you please advise Where did you pick up this lens up for?
Saw on DWI for $474 > HERE

l'm looking at shooting my cousins Wedding in 5 weeks time, and would like a Great Portrait and low light shooting lens that compliments my current equipment list in sig.

by the way, what insurance company do you have now and whats the claim called?
as never really thought about it .. and l have over $10,000 dollars (easily) of Photographic gear as well. IS it expensive? l should get it as well hmmmm...

thanks mate.