Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 XR Di -- Thoughts?

[swampler]

Anyone have one? What's the general concensus? The reviews sound good and pricing is much better than Canon's 17-55 f/2.8, though without IS. Supposed to be sharper than the Sigma version. I know the focus and zoom rings operate in the opposite direction of Canon's, but that's the way my Tamron 24-135 is as well.

Thanks in advance.

[00silvergt]

Originally Posted by swampler

Anyone have one? What's the general concensus? The reviews sound good and pricing is much better than Canon's 17-55 f/2.8, though without IS. Supposed to be sharper than the Sigma version. I know the focus and zoom rings operate in the opposite direction of Canon's, but that's the way my Tamron 24-135 is as well.

Thanks in advance.

I have one. It doesn't have IS like the 17-55, it is arguable that you even need IS for such a wide FL. My Tamron is one that I keep on the body more often than most since it seems to have the FOV I tend to shoot a lot. It is fast and tack sharp. Build is a little questionable, but since Tamron has the best warranty in the industry, it doesn't bother me at all. Here check out some sample pics:

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di

It is a great lens for less than 1/2 the price of the Canon, IQ is superb, equal to the slower EF 17-40 f/4.0 L. I don't own the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, so I can't speak of the comparison in IQ, but at $400, it really is a steal!

[swampler]

Thanks for the info. Sounds like a good choice.

[00silvergt]

I think so. Unless you think you will need the IS for these focal lengths, it doesn't make sense to pay an additional $600 for the EF-S 17-55.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by 00silvergt

I think so. Unless you think you will need the IS for these focal lengths, it doesn't make sense to pay an additional $600 for the EF-S 17-55.

...unless you want/need a lens that *is* sharp at F2.8 wide open over the entire focal range, doesn't rotate while focusing and is silent when doing so...



Max@Home

[00silvergt]

Originally Posted by Max@Home

...unless you want/need a lens that *is* sharp at F2.8 wide open over the entire focal range, doesn't rotate while focusing and is silent when doing so...



Max@Home

...for $600 more...

[swampler]

Originally Posted by Max@Home

...unless you want/need a lens that *is* sharp at F2.8 wide open over the entire focal range, doesn't rotate while focusing and is silent when doing so...



Max@Home

From what I've read, the Tamron element doesn't rotate while focusing. The focus ring does, but not the glass. It also does not extend while focusing.

[00silvergt]

Originally Posted by swampler

From what I've read, the Tamron element doesn't rotate while focusing. The focus ring does, but not the glass. It also does not extend while focusing.

Shoot, I don't have my camera or lens with me, but that does sound about right, however, I know that the barrel extends when you zoom in and out. Which the 17-40 f/4 L doesn't do. But again, even when compared with the 17-40 f/4 L, the $150 delta can be spent for something else. If IQ is the greatest criteria, it will be pixel peeping time to determine a difference in sharpness, CA, etc. when compared with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, the $600 difference makes it even harder to justify the 17-55 f/2.8, since you can get a 70-200mm f/4 and the Tammy for the price of the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. The 70-200 f/4 doesn't rotate or lengthen...

[swampler]

Originally Posted by 00silvergt

I know that the barrel extends when you zoom in and out. Which the 17-40 f/4 L doesn't do. But again, even when compared with the 17-40 f/4 L, the $150 delta can be spent for something else.

Yes, I remember reading that the barrel extends on zooming, but that's not a problem for me. The 17-40 is definitely too short for me on the long end...I question the 50 as too short. I'd really like a 17-85 f/4, but since they don't make one...

The 17-50 will leave a gap between 50 and 70 in my lineup. I hope it won't be an issue. The 17-55 wouldn't help much in that regard either.

My 70-200 f/2.8L doesn't rotate or extend either.

Durys in Nashville carries the 17-50, so maybe I'll take my camera down with me and try it out. They're priced kind of high, but have been known to come down some in the past.

[musicman5]

I owned one of these once upon a time. IQ is fine, construction is fine. As long as you will not need quick AF in low light conditions or care about the noise it makes (which I wouldn't think would be for most folks) then this lens should be a good fit for you.

For me the AF hunted to much which leads to missed shots and I had too many people turn around in their seats to see what was making the buzzing noise behind them! So I sold mine for the 17-55 and have never regretted it.

Just my two cents worth.