Tamron 17-50; give it another go?

skankmaster

skankmaster

skankmaster

Associate
Joined
24 May 2004
Posts
439
About 18 months ago I bought and returned a Tamron 17-50f2.8 due to front focus problems. Im still tempted and wonder if second time lucky I will get something better. What do you guys do when you have purchased a lens that has problems? Get it calibrated? Return it? Buy an alternative?
 
I have the Tamron, and while I haven't noticed any focusing issues, and I can live with the focus speed/noise of focusing, the build quality is pretty dire. The entire front section which the hood attaches to now wobbles to excessive degrees, it doesn't seem to affect the pictures but it doesn't inspire confidence.

While a third of the price of the Nikon equivalent, I'll be thinking long and hard next time I make a purchase about sticking with Nikon or going third-party again.
 
I've owned one and never had any problems with it. If you have focusing problems, you may wish to talk to the UK representative of Tamron. They managed to re-calibrate my 28-75 which was distinctly soft at wider apertures. Following their work, it was spot on.

Having said all of that, whilst I found both lenses to be very sharp, I don't feel that their colour vibrancy is even vaguely close to the Canon L series lenses that I now own, so both were moved on.
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
I've owned one and never had any problems with it. If you have focusing problems, you may wish to talk to the UK representative of Tamron. They managed to re-calibrate my 28-75 which was distinctly soft at wider apertures. Following their work, it was spot on.

Having said all of that, whilst I found both lenses to be very sharp, I don't feel that their colour vibrancy is even vaguely close to the Canon L series lenses that I now own, so both were moved on.
Click to expand...

Do you have any contact information for Tamron UK?

I have a front focusing 17-50mm but i mostly use it on manual focus as I have a split prism focus screen in my EOS 350D. Will hopefully get it corrected at some point.
 
I'm in the pro 17-50 camp here. Mine replaced a 17-40mm f/4L, and whilst I missed it (and still do), the Tamron easily gives it a run for the money IQ wise. I shot a wedding a couple of months back (mainly candids), and found no issues whatsoever. Infact I found it to be ridiculously sharp at 50mm, as good or better than my old 50mm f/1.8.

Just get a non front-focusing lens/recalibration and you're well away. Mr_Sukebe is most certainly correct though - the Tamron is nowhere near the 17-40 for colour reproduction (yellow colour cast can dog the 17-50 a bit), and contrast is again better from the 17-40. I don't really find this an issue though, a little PP and it's up to speed with it's red-rimmed counterpart.
 
danza said:
- the Tamron is nowhere near the 17-40 for colour reproduction (yellow colour cast can dog the 17-50 a bit), and contrast is again better from the 17-40. I don't really find this an issue though, a little PP and it's up to speed with it's red-rimmed counterpart.
Click to expand...

Phew, not just me then. I thought that I was losing it for a while as I've read very few other comments similar to mine.
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
Phew, not just me then. I thought that I was losing it for a while as I've read very few other comments similar to mine.
Click to expand...

Nope, not just you!

To iterate the point - After shooting loads of sunny landscapes with my 17-50 with a Hoya circular polariser, I'd say it compares well to the 17-40 with no polariser, for saturation and contrast at least. Colour is unaffected and still better straight from the 17-40.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom