# Help decide between two Tamron lens



## Marine03 (Mar 7, 2012)

Today is my birthday and I have some cash to spend. Currently only have 450D with kit lens and 50mm 1.8. I'm holding out for a 7D2 or 70d in the future and L glass is out of my budget now. Found two lenses on Craig's list. Both seem to have good reviews. The 17-50 they want 350 and the 28-75 300. I mostly shoot landscape but just had a son and will be the second shooter at a few weddings this summer what would you pick?

Selling Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 Lens for Canon. It is in mint condition and takes sharp images. The glass is clean and scratch free. There are a few dust in the lens, however, this does not affect the image quality.

I will also include the original box , end caps, a receipt and warranty card. I've had this lens for 3 years so there should still be about 1.5 years left on the warranty.

Bought this lens about 8 months ago, but got a full frame so am looking to get the Canon 24-70L. The lens doesn't have any scratches, dents or abrasions. The lens has been used lightly. It comes with the hood, the back and front covers as well. Only looking for serious offers. If you are interested contact me through email or phone and I can send you pics of the lens as well. Will only meet in person to verify both parties are happy. Let me know if your interested, looking to get the L series lens ASAP!


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 7, 2012)

first happy birthday

Personally I would stay away from Tamron gear (I owned one but it was so bad i sent it straight back and never again) especially if you are going to be shooting for paying customers. I recomend saving more and perhaps look at the canon 15-85 I know its more pricey but its going to be much better for all your uses and you have the 50 for low light wide apperture shooting.
buying a second hand tamron like that would be just a waste of your money IMO

you might be able to get a second hand one cheaper too so look around


----------



## Marine03 (Mar 7, 2012)

On Craigslist there are several 15-85's on sale for about 300 also.... so we'll see thanks


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 7, 2012)

Marine03 said:


> On Craigslist there are several 15-85's on sale for about 300 also.... so we'll see thanks



at 600 new i'd snap one of those up if they are around 300 thats a good deal

here is a good review and worth reading
http://www.thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## Tijn (Mar 7, 2012)

You mean the Tamron 27-75 vs the Tamron *17-*50 f/2.8? (you say it right later in your post, but not in the poll)

*Definately* the 17-50 f/2.8 (as long as it is NOT the VC version!)

The 27-75 lacks the wide angle range for crop cameras (as you will know from shooting with your kit lens). The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC, however, is considered to be _one of the sharpest zoom lenses for that low a price_, with such a big aperture. Generally people are very sceptical of third-party lenses, but the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is well-known for its budget sharpness. The VC (image stabilisation) version of that lens, the 17-50 f/2.8 VC, does not have that sharpness (strong haloes, soft edges).

I have the 17-50 f/2.8 myself as well for my 60D, and I like it a lot. Alternatively I'd have got the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 with IS, which has slightly longer zoom range and image stabilization and a tad more sharpness... but I would have had to pay more than 2½ times as much.

The 17-50 f/2.8 is relatively light sensitive, and very sharp image-wise. The biggest downside is that its zoom ring turns the opposite way than the canon's (which I get used to rather quickly), and that the autofocus motor is _noisy_. However, it's decently fast. If those two things don't bother you, this is the best zoom lens you can get for that money, with the right reach for a crop-camera. On a bigger budget, consider the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

This picture was taken with the 17-50 at 50mm, f/2.8 in a not too brightly lit room. Nothing fancy, have only just got my new camera and lens myself.


----------



## Tijn (Mar 7, 2012)

But if the Canon 15-85 is within reach, and you don't care so much about big apertures (f/2.8 ), then that's the better bet. It's sharp as well and has IS, and a bigger zoom range. Very nice lens for anything but low-light or shallow depth of field.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 7, 2012)

i forgot to mention also that non canon lenses are more prone to having off autofocus and you camera body does not have AF micro adjust to correct for this in camera so sticking with branded canon gear is a safer bet


----------



## Marine03 (Mar 7, 2012)

If a lens has some small dust internally it's nothing to walk away from I'm guessing?


----------



## Tijn (Mar 7, 2012)

Marine03 said:


> If a lens has some small dust internally it's nothing to walk away from I'm guessing?


It theoretically reduces the contrast of the lens. Nothing you'll notice in your pictures. However, many people like the idea of having a clean product. If too much dust starts heaping up it might become noticable or make the moving parts in the lens move less smoothly, or in the worst case scenario, block the aperture curtains. Doesn't really happen much in real life though.


----------



## Marine03 (Mar 7, 2012)

Tijn said:


> Marine03 said:
> 
> 
> > If a lens has some small dust internally it's nothing to walk away from I'm guessing?
> ...



After reading this article I no longer fear dust. http://www.kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html


----------



## Beautor (Mar 7, 2012)

Tijn said:


> You mean the Tamron 27-75 vs the Tamron *17-*50 f/2.8? (you say it right later in your post, but not in the poll)
> 
> *Definately* the 17-50 f/2.8 (as long as it is NOT the VC version!)
> 
> ...



I agree with this. For the money, the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 NON-VC is a great lens. I replaced my Canon 17-85 with this one, as I found the Tamron to be sharper, and the faster aperture is much better suited to my needs. If you find a great deal on the Canon 15-85 F3.5-5.6 (not to be confused with the much older Canon 17-85 F4-5.6) then go for it. If you have the money, both the Canon 15-85 and the Canon 17-55 are better lenses, but at around 2x-3x the cost. 

There's a review of the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 here: http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx

This is the only non-Canon lens that makes the recommended General Purpose Lens list on The-Digital-Picture.
http://the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-General-Purpose-Lens.aspx


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 8, 2012)

Marine03 said:


> Tijn said:
> 
> 
> > Marine03 said:
> ...


nope I have a spec of dust inside my 300f4L and it causes no issues


----------



## AJ (Mar 8, 2012)

I own a Tamron 17-50/2.8. It's one of the sharpest lenses I have. I've shot weddings with it. Autofocus is dead accurate, as is the case with my other Tamron gear (unlike Sigma, Tokina and Canon, each of which I've dealt with front/back focus issues).

All in all though, a Canon 15-85 for $300 is a better deal. $300 for a 15-85 sounds almost too good to be true. Are you sure it's 15-85 and not 17-85? The latter are older kit lenses that commonly sell for about $300 used.

No matter what lens you get, be sure to check it out to the best of your abilities as you can, while you're at the seller's door. Duds do exist, no matter what brand. A warranty card that's not filled out may possibly give you some recourse in case of decentering or focus issues.


----------

