# Looking for reviews of the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8



## lopicma (Jun 15, 2012)

I realize there are two versions of this lens (with and without image stabilization), so thoughts on either would be appreciated. To begin with, are _Tamron _lenses any good? I see they are much less expensive that _Canon _or _Nikon_, or even Sigma ... That usually does not bode well.

Thanks,
Mark L.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 15, 2012)

some people like them, my personal experience and opinion is that they are rubbish and a total waste of money.
if you buy one new be prepared for it to have very little resale.


----------



## PictoPete (Jun 15, 2012)

Everywhere on the web notes that the NON-VC version is noticeably better in image quality.


----------



## TTMartin (Jun 15, 2012)

The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 has low, noisy focus that hunts in low light 
And its pictures just look dead (lack vibrance) compared to my Canon and Sigma lenses.

I have one I'll sell you if you want. 

I bought a Sigma 17-50 OS and am very happy with it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 15, 2012)

Tamron lenses are good for the price. Like any other, they have good ones and poor ones. They have seldom had autofocus compatibility with Canon, while sigma has had them big time. 

Resale value for their lenses is going to take a hit, OEM lenses generally bring a lot more when you go to sell them.


----------



## Albi86 (Jun 15, 2012)

PictoPete said:


> Everywhere on the web notes that the NON-VC version is noticeably better in image quality.



Indeed.

To all who blame this lens, I would like to remind you that it's a 17-50mm zoom with constant f/2.8 aperture and costs 270€. What more were you expecting? Of course it has its shortcomings, but overall this lens only deserves praise.

Results may be not amazing wide open, but quite acceptable, especially in the center. And by the way, at f/4 it's definitely sharp.


----------



## akiskev (Jun 15, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> PictoPete said:
> 
> 
> > Everywhere on the web notes that the NON-VC version is noticeably better in image quality.
> ...


Totally agree. At that price, it is a true bargain. 
The only reason I bought a 17-55 was because I found it for 450 euros.


----------



## aznable (Jun 16, 2012)

lopicma said:


> I realize there are two versions of this lens (with and without image stabilization), so thoughts on either would be appreciated. To begin with, are _Tamron _lenses any good? I see they are much less expensive that _Canon _or _Nikon_, or even Sigma ... That usually does not bode well.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mark L.



no VC
http://www.lenstip.com/index.html?test=obiektywu&test_ob=18
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/289-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-canon-test-report--review

VC
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/482-tamron_1750_28vc_canon

the build quality of the lenes isnt at the top, but they shoot good photo like others. 

i would prefere the sigma 17-50 os


----------



## mattbru (Jun 16, 2012)

I've had experience with both the VC and non-VC versions, as well as the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS:

Non-VC: I got it to upgrade the 18-55 kit lens. Its a nice upgrade coming from that. I think the build quality is better. The AF IS noisy, but you get used to it. 

VC: I hated this thing. Perhaps my copy was defective, but the IS took about a half second to kick in after pressing the shutter button to focus. That means if it focused quickly, due to the distance of the previous shot being about the same, I'd have to wait a half second after that for the IS to kick in. Boo.

Overall, I'd recomend the non-VC because of its low(er) price, especially coming from a kit lens. The ability to have constant aperture is awesome, especially if you get into the whole strobist thing. On the other hand, the Canon does give better pictures in my opinion, and always having that in the back of your mind will bother you when using the Tamron. I eventually got the Canon and LOVE it compared to the Tamrons (it is a bit bigger/heavier though). The main complaint people have about it, that it gathers internal dust, is incredibly easy to fix yourself in under 5 minutes.

If you're patient, you can find your desired lens cheap enough used on eBay, that if you decide you don't like it, you can resell it and not lose any money. Its essentially a free, unliimited time, rental. I buy on eBay and resell on Amazon all the time to do this, and you can even MAKE a few bucks in the end if you get it cheap enough.

http://thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx
http://thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-VC-Lens-Review.aspx
http://thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## alan_k (Jun 16, 2012)

I like my non-VC Tamron. As mentioned, it is not a USM lens, so be prepared for a) noisy AF b) no full time MF. I'd consider it a good value, a worthwhile upgrade from the kit, and considerably cheaper than the canon alternative. Can't speak to comparing it to the sigma, but I've heard if you really want IS/USM, then get the sigma over the tamron. IS is not necessarily very critical with this focal range unless you shoot video or shoot a lot of static subjects in low light w/o tripod.


----------



## lopicma (Jun 30, 2012)

I want to thank all those that kicked in their 2 cents. Looks like it's a mixed bag. I want to replace my kit lens from a _Rebel XS_. I am not making money on any of my photos, and have no delusions about that, so spending 2.5 times the coin on a _Canon _lens of comparable status, is out of the question.

I just took delivery of this lens, and I have to say, the build/construction of the lens is not what I expected. 

1. It's heavier than any of the _Canon _lenses I own. This is not a bad thing, but it did surprise me.

2. When I unboxed it, I found out why... The lens is a whopping 72mm in diameter! I wasn't sure how it would fit on my _Rebel XS_... but of course it was fine.

I have taken some indoor shot of my lazy cat, and have plans to take it out "in the wild" this weekend, but so far I am happy with the lens.

As stated in the manual - which is a boring read, but necessary - the VC kicks in a split second after the shutter button is half depressed, and last for a split second after you release the button. I find it far more smooth than the _Canon 55-250mm IS _lens once it gets started. The stabilization on that lens hops all over the place when racked out to 250.


----------

