Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC

[Cartman2000]

Today, I went down to MS Color and was going to buy either the VC or the non-VC version of the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lens. I decided to try both and if the VC proved to be soft especially at 50mm f2.8, I'd take the non-VC over it. Did some simple testing in the shop. I know they're quite poorly done, but here are some 100% crop samples. Shot with a shutter speed of 1/160, handheld.

f2.8, 50mm non-VC(focus point on second m of mm)

f2.8, 50mm VC off(focus point on second m of mm)

f2.8, 50mm VC on(focus point on second m of mm)

It appears that the 17-50mm f2.8 VC is not a soft/crap/disappointment after all..

 

[auden09]

Today, I went down to MS Color and was going to buy either the VC or the non-VC version of the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lens. I decided to try both and if the VC proved to be soft especially at 50mm f2.8, I'd take the non-VC over it. Did some simple testing in the shop. I know they're quite poorly done, but here are some 100% crop samples. Shot with a shutter speed of 1/160, handheld.

f2.8, 50mm non-VC(focus point on second m of mm)

f2.8, 50mm VC off(focus point on second m of mm)

f2.8, 50mm VC on(focus point on second m of mm)

It appears that the 17-50mm f2.8 VC is not a soft/crap/disappointment after all..

:thumbsup: good to know. always love to see a strong contender against canon. i think canon shld really wake the hell up, improve on their primes and ef-s lenses.

 

[pingkee82]

gd testing

 

[auden09]

er no. from cartman's findings...the vc version is sharper...

 

[TheStig]

Is it true that the AF motor and VC are very noisy? Also, is that CA I see, or am I just sleepy?

I've been looking forward to this lens' reviews. TDP's initial findings didn't seem to be favorable.

 

[Yoh]

:thumbsup: good to know. always love to see a strong contender against canon. i think canon shld really wake the hell up, improve on their primes and ef-s lenses.

:dunno: What's wrong with Canon's primes and EF-S lenses?

 

[Shen siung]

:dunno: What's wrong with Canon's primes and EF-S lenses?

I also wonder what's wrong... anyway, I feel that it is almost similar in terms of sharpness.

 

[auden09]

erm i dun mean canon's L primes...i mean the non-L ones. the 50 f/1.4 is great, but has a fragile AF motor. and the 35mm f/2, 24 f/2.8, 28mm isn't on par with the other offerings by the 3rd party lensmakers today. the sigma 50/30 1.4 have such nice build as compared to the canon 50 1.4. ah well, maybe it's just me? i dun see the 35 f2 measuring up to sigma's 30 f1.4? ya...

and about EF-S lenses...there are only two quality efs lenses to choose from currently. 17-55 and 15-85. =( once again, maybe its juz me. i was really hoping that since the 17-55 f2.8 is the 24-70 f2.8 of crop, den why can't the 15-85 which is the 24-105 of crop have a constant f/4 aperture? well i was thinking i dun mind paying $1.1k for that. den the price of the 15-85 will be more justifiable like the 24-70 ($2.1k) vs 24-105 ($1.7k).

well all these are based solely on my own opinions, feelings and wants. =)

 

[Cartman2000]

erm i dun mean canon's L primes...i mean the non-L ones. the 50 f/1.4 is great, but has a fragile AF motor. and the 35mm f/2, 24 f/2.8, 28mm isn't on par with the other offerings by the 3rd party lensmakers today. the sigma 50/30 1.4 have such nice build as compared to the canon 50 1.4. ah well, maybe it's just me? i dun see the 35 f2 measuring up to sigma's 30 f1.4? ya...

Well, the 30mm f1.4 can only be used on crop cameras. The $400 24mm f2.8 is actually a very good lens for full frame or crop work, tack sharp at the centre at f2.8.

 

[TheStig]

and about EF-S lenses...there are only two quality efs lenses to choose from currently. 17-55 and 15-85. =( once again, maybe its juz me. i was really hoping that since the 17-55 f2.8 is the 24-70 f2.8 of crop, den why can't the 15-85 which is the 24-105 of crop have a constant f/4 aperture? well i was thinking i dun mind paying $1.1k for that. den the price of the 15-85 will be more justifiable like the 24-70 ($2.1k) vs 24-105 ($1.7k).

well all these are based solely on my own opinions, feelings and wants. =)

EF-S 60mm f2.8 macro and 10-22 are pretty good. I own the 60mm macro, and it's super, super sharp (but once again, it is a macro lens). The 10-22 is a good lens too. You don't need a very wide aperture for an UWA lens imo, although the tokina 11-16 with a constant aperture of f2.8 does sound very tempting.

As for the 15-85, it's a kit lens after all, albeit a very good one, and is paired with Canon's top of the line APS-C body. If it has constant aperture, it will be more expensive, and most people won't get the 7D with 15-85 package. They will just get other better lenses instead. The price of such package will be close to 5dm2 body.

 

[Yoh]

erm i dun mean canon's L primes...i mean the non-L ones. the 50 f/1.4 is great, but has a fragile AF motor. and the 35mm f/2, 24 f/2.8, 28mm isn't on par with the other offerings by the 3rd party lensmakers today. the sigma 50/30 1.4 have such nice build as compared to the canon 50 1.4. ah well, maybe it's just me? i dun see the 35 f2 measuring up to sigma's 30 f1.4? ya...

and about EF-S lenses...there are only two quality efs lenses to choose from currently. 17-55 and 15-85. =( once again, maybe its juz me. i was really hoping that since the 17-55 f2.8 is the 24-70 f2.8 of crop, den why can't the 15-85 which is the 24-105 of crop have a constant f/4 aperture? well i was thinking i dun mind paying $1.1k for that. den the price of the 15-85 will be more justifiable like the 24-70 ($2.1k) vs 24-105 ($1.7k).

well all these are based solely on my own opinions, feelings and wants. =)

Perhaps if you've learn to see things at a wider perspective, there are happy users of those Canon lenses that you've mentioned.

For the EF-S lenses, there are more than just 2 quality EF-S lenses to choose from. But shan't go into details since its OT from this thread. Try out more lenses and you'll understand things better. And pay more if you want good quality, its no exception for 3rd party lenses either.

 

[Cartman2000]

Yesterday, I went to the Clarke Quay area to do some test shots with this lens. I was quite impressed with the performance of the VC. This lens allows you to shoot at 1/20 without remorse. Every shot here was done with between 1/6-1/13 of a second, other than the one with the OOF circles of light. Shot in JPEG and pulled out straight from camera.

 

[photobugg]

Looks like a winner for me

 

[android17]

Now u all finally know how it feels to hv vc with tamron 17-50.

Pentax and Sony users have been using this lens with VC for years lol.

So now u guys know that with vc, u can take nite shots with ease using f2.8.

Now imagine using vc with 30mm or 50mm prime lens with f1.4, it'll allow even lower light without flash.

Hope some day Canon and Nikon users can hv 30 or 50mm f1.4 lens with vc to experience this.

 

[Shen siung]

Yesterday, I went to the Clarke Quay area to do some test shots with this lens. I was quite impressed with the performance of the VC. This lens allows you to shoot at 1/20 without remorse. Every shot here was done with between 1/6-1/13 of a second, other than the one with the OOF circles of light. Shot in JPEG and pulled out straight from camera.

The bokeh of this is very nice.

 

[Titus]

I am impressed Am really tempted on this lens now.

 

[Cartman2000]

A shot of the lens. Build quality is very impressive for the price. This lens has better build quality than the EF-S 17-55mm lens. It is just of slightly poorer build than an L lens.

 

[auden09]

cartman, how much you bought it? now im also interested in this lens!

 

[Cartman2000]

cartman, how much you bought it? now im also interested in this lens!

Hahaha yet another believer of the 17-50mm VC. Got it at $990 from MS Color with a Hoya UV filter, but do drop them an e-mail before heading down. The guy behind me bought the Nikon mount but didn't get the e-quote. He paid $15 more.

 

[auden09]

thanks alot! gonna check it out! its either this or the non-vc.