Tamron 17-50 f2.8
- Thread starter Xiao_shin
- Start date
- Status
Anyone interested in the 17-50 f2.8 (EOS mount) can drop me a pm. I'm planning to bring a one or two back to SG, depending the stock availability here (it's selling like hot cakes)... brand new sets with international warranty (1 year I think).
Price will definitely be cheaper than SG.
Price will definitely be cheaper than SG.
aaron80
Senior Member
FilterFunk
Senior Member
satch, pls check PM thanks 
Del_CtrlnoAlt
Senior Member
u minolta user?
thinking of getting 1 for a wedding shoot. where in sg got stock for minolta mount?
Not at the moment. $660 - $690
metallilan
Senior Member
i think if you had read the review before you bought it, the lens is what it is.. i have one copy..not much complains here..
I have read the reviews, and i dun think all lenses are what they are. I have bad experiences with other lens (even Nikon ones) and would like to check off hand if there may be some QC problem ones before getting one.
Personally I feel that the QC problems for third-party lens like Tamron and the Nikon ones are more or less the same. Maybe Nikon has slightly better QC. Its just that sometimes when a lens is popular the number of users getting lemons or who are are more critical is also higher and thus they will complain more. In general I will take the number of praises for a particular lens over the number of complains to feel if the lens has a QC problem. My feeling is that the Tamron in general has no major QC problems. And yes I have the Tamron. It is both "good" and "bad". I will qualify why later.
I also feel it has a lot to do with user expectations. They expect to automatically get good pictures once they pay for the lens. Different users also have different priorities. Some value sharpness over all else. Some can't stand CA. Some feel there must be a X factor in the image produced by the lens. All I can say is that sharpness is not everything. It is important yes but not the overriding factor in deciding a lens. What makes a lens great is a combination of many factors.
When I buy a lens, I like everybody else, will look at its reviews. But I will not only look for the superlatives. I also look for its failings and see whether it is acceptable to me. Usually there will be a general consensus on the lens. The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 for e.g is said to be sharp across all apertures. This is important to me as I shoot at wide apertures often. At the same time it is said to have light falloff at the corners at these same wide apertures. So does that make it a good or bad lens? Understand that no lens is perfect. You have to work within its limitations and exploits its strengths. Understand what is important to you and you can go forward from there. One can read all the reviews in the world and get nowhere. Some will say it is good and some will say it is bad but nobody knows their point of reference.
I also feel it has a lot to do with user expectations. They expect to automatically get good pictures once they pay for the lens. Different users also have different priorities. Some value sharpness over all else. Some can't stand CA. Some feel there must be a X factor in the image produced by the lens. All I can say is that sharpness is not everything. It is important yes but not the overriding factor in deciding a lens. What makes a lens great is a combination of many factors.
When I buy a lens, I like everybody else, will look at its reviews. But I will not only look for the superlatives. I also look for its failings and see whether it is acceptable to me. Usually there will be a general consensus on the lens. The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 for e.g is said to be sharp across all apertures. This is important to me as I shoot at wide apertures often. At the same time it is said to have light falloff at the corners at these same wide apertures. So does that make it a good or bad lens? Understand that no lens is perfect. You have to work within its limitations and exploits its strengths. Understand what is important to you and you can go forward from there. One can read all the reviews in the world and get nowhere. Some will say it is good and some will say it is bad but nobody knows their point of reference.
Well said.
For me, I am curious how good and fast the AF is going to be for the Canon mount, particularly in low light.
IMHO, there is no point in getting an f/2.8 (or faster) lens if it's going to be soft wide open or if it constantly hunts in low light.Well said.
For me, I am curious how good and fast the AF is going to be for the Canon mount, particularly in low light.
Can't vouch for the Canon mount but on the Nikon it is sharp at wide open. Sharpest at f5.6 like most lenses. AF is very acceptable in low light although not the fastest around.
metallilan
Senior Member
It works on my D70 + Sigma 500 Super DG Combo....
not a problem... this work even on the older model like 28-75.
azul123
Senior Member
- Status
Similar threads
