Tamron sp 17-50 ? Any good??

swanseamale47

swanseamale47

Suspended / Banned
Messages
10,876
Name
wayne clarke
Edit My Images
Yes
Does anyone have this lens "Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II VC LD Aspherical [IF]"

I'm wondering how good this lens is, I used to use a lot of the old tamron lens for film but have stuck with makers own brand, but I've had 2 lens fail with the same fault so looking at a different make.
Thanks Wayne
 
I have one for my 7D (as well as a Canon 17-55mm f2.8) and have to say I have no problems using it instead of the Canon lens. Its sharp wide open, pretty fast to focus and a LOT cheaper .. downside is that it takes a little longer for the VC to kick in compared to the 17-55mm and its a bit noisier focusing.
 
It's a great DX lens. Only reason I ever sold mine was because I moved to FX. I'd say it was the best value lens I ever bought for Dx. Bought mine used for €250 - if you can get one for same or cheaper, it's a steal. Don't worry about the VC version, the older non VC one is better by all accounts. But ... either will be very good.
 
I have the Tamron VC, and agree with Mike.P. I don't notice VC to be slow, but focus noise is noticeable. It is cheaper and sharp with great VC. I don't see any need to upgrade to Canon. Some people like the non-VC more. It is also a bit lighter, but probably harder to find now, so it just depends on whether you want VC.
 
Last edited:
Many thanks for the reviews, I think I'll be ordering one in a few days (when I have time) And when I can hide it from 'her indoors'
 
I had one that I used on my 40d. It was/is a great lens with good but not super fast auto focus and as has been said there is a slight delay for the vc to cut in. Only sold mine when I went back to m4/3.
 
Excellent lens, you'd have to be incredibly demanding to find issue with it. Most of my recent photos have been taken with mine since the demise of my Tokina 11-16mm. The Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 is also worth a shout, I tested both side by side and could not tell them apart at all, but went for the Tamron for the slightly wider range.
 
I have one as well and really like it

It knocks spots off the Nikon 18-55 kit lens I had before it

Now I have upgraded my camera body it's even better!
 
It's an excellent lens, and contrary to a remark further up, the VC version is the better lens when compared to its older non-VC predecessor.

The VC version is better built, and that little bit sharper, definitely a lens worth having.
 
I had one for a while but the poor AF was enough for me to get rid of it. And contrary to what is said above, the non-VC version is widely considered to be the better, and sharper, lens. A quick google search for reviews will tell you the same.
 
Just to clear up the issue of the non VC Vs VC.

The older non VC was sharper than the older version VC lens

The newer SP VC version is slightly sharper than both the old VC and non VC versions.
 
Is this Tamron lens significantly better than the 18-55 kit lens? I am really after a super zoom (probably Tamron 70-300 VC) for some wildlife and sports photography, but considering whether it would be better to upgrade my current lens first. Any thoughts on which to do first?
 
iancandler said:
Just to clear up the issue of the non VC Vs VC.

The older non VC was sharper than the older version VC lens

The newer SP VC version is slightly sharper than both the old VC and non VC versions.
Click to expand...

Ahh, so there is 3 versions:thinking:, how to tell which is which?

I know it should be easy, but looking online at them, it ain't easy to see any newer version of the VC with SP moniker as they both carry the SP, old non VC and new VC

I only see two versions.
 
Ivan S said:
Ahh, so there is 3 versions:thinking:, how to tell which is which?

I know it should be easy, but looking online at them, it ain't easy to see any newer version of the VC with SP moniker as they both carry the SP, old non VC and new VC

I only see two versions.
Click to expand...


From personal experience of actually using the lenses,I had 5 or 6 non VC examples, I got a VC example pretty soon after they launched (within the first year), and another one last year.

Both of the VC lenses I had were better than any of the non VC lenses I had, they were also of a better build quality (the build quality of the non VC was a little cheap, I had a front element fall out of one once), and both VC had slightly better sharpness and colour.

I can't remember there being any difference in box, look or description between the 2 VC lenses, though I do recall an internet rumour that Tamron had QC problems with the first batch made (though as with most internet stories, there is no way of ever verifying the rumours and stories that pop up on forums).
 
Personally having VC on a 17-50 is nice but not a must have for this kind of focal range. I say just get whatever feels right for you. Either version is good.
 
badboy1984 said:
Personally having VC on a 17-50 is nice but not a must have for this kind of focal range. I say just get whatever feels right for you. Either version is good.
Click to expand...

Have you had both?

The VC is actually pretty useful, I found it was between 2 and 3 stops better with VC.
 
I have the non VC version and my friend have the VC version. I did play around with the VC.

I didn't say VC is not useful, is a good thing to have but not end of the world if no VC. I use a 28-70 f2.8 and that have no VR. So when i use this 17-50 i don't really need VC on, but thats my personal opinion.

Like i said both is good.
 
Looking for a lens to compliment my nifty fifty or even replace it.
 
Paule23 said:
Is this Tamron lens significantly better than the 18-55 kit lens? I am really after a super zoom (probably Tamron 70-300 VC) for some wildlife and sports photography, but considering whether it would be better to upgrade my current lens first. Any thoughts on which to do first?
Click to expand...

That's up to you of course. Is it better than the kit lens ? Yes, massively so. I have the vc version and used it on Sunday at the supercar event ( click on my Flickr link below in my signature ). Considering the speed of these cars from a standing start, I was really pleased with them.
 
I used one on a D200 and D300 Wayne, I also had the famed Nikon 17-55 F2.8 at the same time. Whilst the Nikkor was better built,the IQ was very nearly the same,the Tamron slightly less good, but you had to really pixel peep to tell.

I would recommend it to you.
 
I'd go for the non-VC version! Sharper and a lot cheaper... :thumbs:
 
I went for the vc and within a week I swapped it for the non vc and was happy enough.
 
Dave1 said:
From personal experience of actually using the lenses,I had 5 or 6 non VC examples, I got a VC example pretty soon after they launched (within the first year), and another one last year.

Both of the VC lenses I had were better than any of the non VC lenses I had, they were also of a better build quality (the build quality of the non VC was a little cheap, I had a front element fall out of one once), and both VC had slightly better sharpness and colour.

I can't remember there being any difference in box, look or description between the 2 VC lenses, though I do recall an internet rumour that Tamron had QC problems with the first batch made (though as with most internet stories, there is no way of ever verifying the rumours and stories that pop up on forums).
Click to expand...

It's nice to have some real opinion from someone who's actually owned all lenses in question rather than people just repeating what they've hear on the 'net :)
 
Nawty said:
It's nice to have some real opinion from someone who's actually owned all lenses in question rather than people just repeating what they've hear on the 'net :)
Click to expand...

And he is not the only one that owned both ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top