tamron 17-50 f2.8 zoom.

Discussion of lenses, brand or independent, uses and merits
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
johncjohn
Acolyte
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 12:47 pm

tamron 17-50 f2.8 zoom.

Unread postby johncjohn » Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:59 am

i am thinking of getting one,any opinions would be appreciated.
best to all,
john

User avatar
aster
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 5727
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:33 pm

Re: tamron 17-50 f2.8 zoom.

Unread postby aster » Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:41 pm

Hello John, :D

Apparently it's a fine lens. I don't own one but there are those who do, like Kevin Barret (a forum member), and he uses it extensively, for wedding photos and such. Hopefully he'll jump in and speak of his experience with the lens.

Some say its aparture is there when needed but has to be stopped down for sharper photos at wide open and it has a more budget-friendly price and has a 6 year warranty which is good news . Here's a discussion thread for this lens against the Carl-Zeiss 16-80mm:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=29487719

I had a similar dilemma until an hour ago; I had to decide between the two lenses and finally went for the Carl Zeiss for better contrast+brightness. Hopefully a good copy of the lens will be sent my way.

Good luck on your purchase,
Yildiz

User avatar
Dr. Harout
Tower of Babel
Posts: 5833
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:38 pm
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Contact:

Re: tamron 17-50 f2.8 zoom.

Unread postby Dr. Harout » Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:03 pm

A99 + a7rII + Sony, Zeiss, Minolta, Rokinon and M42 lenses

Flickr

User avatar
KevinBarrett
Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
Posts: 2562
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:32 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA
Contact:

Re: tamron 17-50 f2.8 zoom.

Unread postby KevinBarrett » Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:25 pm

Hello! Somebody asking about my lens, here? Well, it's not MY lens, but I do own a copy. Popularly the Tamron 17-50/2.8 (which I own) is compared to the Sony 16-80ZA (which I don't), and as you know, the 17-50 offers a fast aperture throughout its range, equivalent to a 25.5-75 f/2.8 zoom on full frame. That is what's known as the standard wedding reception lens. I love mine, and while the biggest complaint about it is the range, I don't find this to be a problem indoors. Outdoors, it can be a nuisance, but the luxury of f/2.8 indoors makes this a bit of a specialty zoom, and there's no replacement for that kind of speed in a zoom lens. It needs to be stopped down for best results, like most lenses, but the f/2.8 is always there for you.

Pros:
  • Speed!
  • Wide angle (compared to 18-70 and super-zooms)
  • Bokeh opportunities with f/2.8
  • Good control of distortion
  • Great build quality and feel
  • No observable loss of sharpness in the corners
  • Excellent control of chromatic aberrations
  • Great flare resistance, thanks to coatings and a hood designed for a smaller frame (as compared to Minolta/Tamron 17-35)
  • Non-rotating front element
  • Risk free: no quality issues and a 6-year warranty

Cons:
  • Range
  • Curvature of field reported by some (I haven't noticed it)
  • Bokeh can be underwhelming if you own some old Minolta bokeh machines; 50/1.7, 70-210/4
  • Needs to be stopped down for best results
  • Light fall-off at 17mm (no mechanical vignetting)
  • Filter size (67mm), while common, isn't matched by any other Sony or Minolta lens that I know of

Curiously, what I find myself wanting more than a longer zoom range is a wider one! The 16mm offered by the 16-80ZA and 16-105 leave me a little envious. However, the 16-105 has quite a bit of softness in the middle and at the long end of the zoom range, and the 16mm offered by the Carl Zeiss lens is haunted by mechanical vignetting, a problem which is aggravated when using filters. The Carl Zeiss is otherwise a superb lens when you get a good copy. More often, people go from the Tamron 17-50 to the Sony 16-80ZA rather than the other way around, but the Tamron is significantly less expensive. I got my copy new for $420...I often have to remind myself of this when I see that the Sony 16-80ZA doesn't need to be stopped down from its maximum aperture (3.5-4.5) to produce its best images. I can see how Sony's lens, while handicapped by a poor quality control reputation and mechanical vignetting, has a slight advantage in versatility and image quality, though you will certainly pay for the difference.

Make no mistake, I'm glad I bought the Tamron, it was a bargain and produces great images all across its range. I'll post some images with 100% crops for your consideration. However, if you've got the money for the Sony 16-80ZA, the know-how to spot a good or bad copy of it, plus the patience to wait for a better one if your first one turns out bad, and particularly if the limited range of the Tamron doesn't suit you, I'd recommend the Sony. I may still buy one later, and when I do, I doubt if I'll use the Tamron much except when I need the speed.

User Birma has a Tamron 17-50/2.8 as well, so he may chime in here. Let me also direct you to another couple of threads that have images from this lens.

Wedding photo plus 100% crop
Night shot with diffraction stars
More wedding shots plus my first impressions

Also for your consideration:
Which zoom lens for a new APS-C user?
Kevin Barrett
-- Photos --

johncjohn
Acolyte
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 12:47 pm

Re: tamron 17-50 f2.8 zoom.

Unread postby johncjohn » Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:43 am

hi guys,
thank you for your input.kevins opinions,plus those of dixum forum members,[thanks doc for pointing me in that direction], have convinced me to place an order asap!i already a tam 11-18 so reckon that 17-50 will complement that nicely.although i have a beercan and a 100-300 apo they do not get a great deal of use,the wider end of things being of more interest to me.
best to all,
john

User avatar
Dr. Harout
Tower of Babel
Posts: 5833
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:38 pm
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Contact:

Re: tamron 17-50 f2.8 zoom.

Unread postby Dr. Harout » Thu Oct 23, 2008 12:09 pm

you're welcome. :D
A99 + a7rII + Sony, Zeiss, Minolta, Rokinon and M42 lenses

Flickr

User avatar
Birma
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6679
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 3:10 pm

Re: tamron 17-50 f2.8 zoom.

Unread postby Birma » Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:36 am

Hi John,

Welcome to the forum. I've had the Tamrom 17-50/2.8 for 10 months now and bought it as a step up from the 18-70 kit lens that came with the A100. As a inexperienced dslr user I have really enjoyed using this lens and it is the default lens I tend to keep on my camera. For me it has been easier to take pictures I am pleased with, than it was with the kit lens. I would echo everything Kevin put in his excellent review above. It feels like a quality piece of kit, and the f2.8 makes it nice and bright to compose with. I think, like Kevin, I still want the CZ16-80 one day, but I am really happy with the Tammy. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

Let us know what you think when it comes through.

I'd be interested to know how you think it compares with the Tam 11-18, as this a lens I've been considering and the quality etc. of the 17-50 makes me think that the Tam version of the 11-18 would be a good choice. It would also be interesting to know if once you have both you use the 11-18 less.
Nex 5, Nex 6 (IR), A7M2, A99 and a bunch of lenses.

User avatar
KevinBarrett
Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
Posts: 2562
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:32 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA
Contact:

Re: tamron 17-50 f2.8 zoom.

Unread postby KevinBarrett » Mon Oct 27, 2008 11:23 am

You're welcome! I don't think you'll be disappointed, and I hope it serves you well. Do let us know what you think of it after you've started using it!
Kevin Barrett
-- Photos --

Alan Shaw
Acolyte
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:17 pm

Re: tamron 17-50 f2.8 zoom.

Unread postby Alan Shaw » Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:56 am

I’m glad I read this thread!

I mentioned in another thread I was looking to rationalise my lenses and since then had chosen the Tamron as my most likely choice. I’d have preferred the CZ16-80 but could not justify the fact it cost more than double the price of the Tamron. I also thought about the Sigma 17-70 but the consensus on various threads seemed the Tamron was a better lens.

So having finally organised the $A600 needed all I had to do was actually go to Ted’s and buy it.

Last night though a quandary emerged – a CZ16-80 at $A750 was advertised on eBay, and interestingly it was available for pick up here in Brisbane. What to do? For an extra $150 I could get the CZ after all and for a little over half the new retail price. I was tempted, but decided not to. I have read enough posts about the mixed QA of the CZ that I did not want to buy a second hand copy and not have any warranty cover for possible problems.

Dunno whether that’s the right decision or not, but either way I’ll soon be able to sell off my 19-35 Tokina and Minolta 50/1.7 and 28/2.8 lenses. That should save quite a lot of weight in the bag!

Righto, having written this I’m off to Ted’s to go and finally buy it.

Woohoo!

Alan

Brisbane, Australia
Alan Shaw
Brisbane, Australia
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my Railgrafx rail photography site:
http://www.railgrafx.id.au

Visit my Moreton Bay Model Railways Site:
http://home.iprimus.com.au/mbmr/index.html

User avatar
KevinBarrett
Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
Posts: 2562
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:32 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA
Contact:

Re: tamron 17-50 f2.8 zoom.

Unread postby KevinBarrett » Thu Oct 30, 2008 6:18 am

It could be tricky enough to get a good copy of a 16-80 NEW. I certainly wouldn't trust a second-hand copy. Part of my decision to buy the Tamron was for the fact that it won't depreciate quite so much as the Sony 16-80 if I ever decide to sell it.

Also, I wouldn't sell off my 50/1.7 if I were you. The Tamron isn't as sharp as this lens, and certainly not as fast. I doubt if I'd sell any prime that I owned unless I had a better one at the same focal length. Being a fixed lens, the 50/1.7 doesn't have any of the design compromises of the zoom, and then on an APS-C body you're only using the "sweet spot" at the center of the image circle. I know I'm keeping mine!
Kevin Barrett
-- Photos --

User avatar
[SiC]
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 498
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 7:16 am
Location: Hammarö, Sweden
Contact:

Re: tamron 17-50 f2.8 zoom.

Unread postby [SiC] » Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:17 am

KevinBarrett wrote:Also, I wouldn't sell off my 50/1.7 if I were you. The Tamron isn't as sharp as this lens, and certainly not as fast. I doubt if I'd sell any prime that I owned unless I had a better one at the same focal length. Being a fixed lens, the 50/1.7 doesn't have any of the design compromises of the zoom, and then on an APS-C body you're only using the "sweet spot" at the center of the image circle. I know I'm keeping mine!


I'm with Kevin on this one... Don't think I'd ever part with my 50mm f/1.7 :D And besides, it's pretty light anyways.

/Zeb!
Sony A700, A580, Nex-5t, KM D7D & VC-7D, M Dynax 500si
KM 17-35 F2.8-4 D, M 50 F1.7 RS, M 135 F2.8, M 28-100 F3.5-5.6 D, M 100-200 F4.5, T 70-300 F4-5.6 Di USD, S 18-55 F3.5-5.6 SAM, S 18-70 F3.5-5.6
Sony hvl-f42s, Minolta 3600 HS D
Sony Z1C & Z2

Alan Shaw
Acolyte
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:17 pm

Re: tamron 17-50 f2.8 zoom.

Unread postby Alan Shaw » Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:00 am

I agree with the natural tendency to want to keep the primes. But quite a few reviews suggest the comparison is actually very close between the Tamron and the 50/1.7, and probably better than the 28/2.8, although there is some variation between copies of each lens.

I’ll try to do a few of my own tests on my 7D in the next couple of days and unless the primes are noticeably better then they’ll be sold. It’s not just the weight either – I need the cash to fund my recent purchases!

That CZ16-80 I was interested in has not sold and has been relisted. Strangely though, the minimum bid required is higher now than first time round!

How about this though: having gone to Ted’s to pick up the lens yesterday, there is a near-new copy on eBay right now for about $150 less than I just paid!

Not very happy but that’s what happens sometimes.

Alan
Brisbane, Australia
Alan Shaw
Brisbane, Australia
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my Railgrafx rail photography site:
http://www.railgrafx.id.au

Visit my Moreton Bay Model Railways Site:
http://home.iprimus.com.au/mbmr/index.html

Vidgamer
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:37 am

Re: tamron 17-50 f2.8 zoom.

Unread postby Vidgamer » Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:44 am

I'm a bit late to this thread, but just wanted to add that I love my Tamron 17-50. It's not perfect, but it's pretty darned good, I think. I think you could pay a lot more to maybe get better in some situations. It's my main "go to" lens.

As for the 50/1.7 and 28/2.8, those don't get as much respect as the other primes, but they are still pretty good. I think after getting the 17-50, I don't use those other lenses much, but the 50/1.7 still has a specialty use. Sharpness-wise, I tested the 50/1.7 vs. the 17-50/2.8, and they are close enough for me, when stepped down. The 50/1.7 might even have an edge, but not enough to matter to me. Still, I think the 50/1.7 is special. Then again, I like all of my lenses in some way, although some are more flawed than others. :D

User avatar
KevinBarrett
Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
Posts: 2562
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:32 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA
Contact:

Filters for the Tamron 17-50

Unread postby KevinBarrett » Tue Nov 04, 2008 9:30 pm

I have tested a Nikon slim multi-coated CPL on mine and observed no vignetting, but its probably the most expensive I've seen. The slim Quantaray filters at Wolf/Ritz don't cause vignetting either and still allow a lens cap, but they seem to block far more light than anything else I've seen. I was considering the slim B+W and Hoya circular polarizers, but am uncertain whether these will provide for the use of a lens cap. Has anybody got any experience with filters for this lens?
Kevin Barrett
-- Photos --

Vidgamer
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:37 am

Re: Filters for the Tamron 17-50

Unread postby Vidgamer » Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:12 pm

KevinBarrett wrote:I have tested a Nikon slim multi-coated CPL on mine and observed no vignetting, but its probably the most expensive I've seen. ....


If price is a major concern, what about a linear polarizer? I'm not convinced that a CPL is needed for my camera, at least with the brief tests I gave it. I use filters as little as possible, but a polarizer is one that does come in handy sometimes. I just haven't bitten the bullet on one for the 17-50 because I figured the cost would be more than I could stand. :?


Return to “Lens Lore”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron