Tamron 17-50 bargain

D.P.

D.P.

D.P.

Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
32,737
A lot of us know about the Tamron 17-50 2.8, with image quality very close to the Canon and Nikon counterparts at a fraction of the price. In fact, some say the Tamron has better objective IQ (raw sharpness etc) than the Nikon, although the Nikon has the usual magic Nikon feel.



Recently, Tamron announced a VR/IS version (VC in Tamrons terminology) with supposedly improved optics. This made the lens even more appealing for Nikon users (the Nikon 17-55 Dx does not have VR, yet).


I just browsed through a price comparison website in Siwtzerland (where I live), and have seen the older Tamron 17-50 non-VC is going crazy cheap.

When I last looked it was 650-700CHF, now the new VC one is 650-700 but the older one is a mere 300CHF, less than half price now. Not just 1 shop but many:

http://www.toppreise.ch/prod_114702.html

I trust this link is ok since they aren't UK retailers.
Sadly, looking at the UK price comparison website shows it sells for >
GBP300 still.



300CHF is about GBP 180, account for the weak pound.


Now i'm seriously tempted, IQ close to Nikon 17-55 DX for sub £200 new...
 
Looks to be a pricing error? The Canon version is still normal price. Have you bought from there before? Might be worth a punt I guess. It's probably the most popular low cost crop sensor constant f/2.8 apeture lens and gets rave reviews everywhere for image quality. On the other hand, I've had one and it was soft to the point where I got a refund it was so bad wide open. Quality control seems bad and I don't know how easy it wouldbe to swap if you wanted to? The barrel also twists the opposite way to what you might be used to for zooming. It's not built as well as the Sigma/Canon/Nikon equivalent and the AF motor is very noisy.
 
martinturner said:
Seriously buy one; mine never leaves my camera ;-)
Click to expand...

Which version do you have? I'm really tempted to get one. The non VC one is going for £250 on One Stop. Would it be worth paying £388.46 for the VC version?

The only thing putting me off was this review by Tom Hogan, but after seeing your shots with this lens, they're not at all flat. Not sure if hes talking about portrait photography where a longer focal length helps to blur the background and make the subject stand out more?

Before continuing, I should note that, while I carry this focal range with me much of the time, I very rarely use it (indeed, I had to up my use of it to finish this test, which has been going on for some time). That's because one of the key elements of successful photography is dealing with "depth." The real reason pros gravitate toward the wider and more telephoto focal lengths doesn't have as much to do with angle of view as it has to do with the ability to exaggerate the compression or expansion of visual depth in an image. Because we're taking three-dimensional objects and producing them as two-dimensional ones in our photos, "normal" depth cues actually tend to make the resulting images look a bit flat. Especially when compared to ones that were taken with more extreme focal lengths and specifically targeted at exaggerating depth cues. Still, a large proportion of users end up with mid-range zooms in their bag, and use them regularly.
Click to expand...
 
jaybee;15678167[B said:
]Looks to be a pricing error? [/B]The Canon version is still normal price. Have you bought from there before? Might be worth a punt I guess. It's probably the most popular low cost crop sensor constant f/2.8 apeture lens and gets rave reviews everywhere for image quality. On the other hand, I've had one and it was soft to the point where I got a refund it was so bad wide open. Quality control seems bad and I don't know how easy it wouldbe to swap if you wanted to? The barrel also twists the opposite way to what you might be used to for zooming. It's not built as well as the Sigma/Canon/Nikon equivalent and the AF motor is very noisy.
Click to expand...

There are 34 E-tailors with approximately the same price. (300-330CHF)

QC is not the best on this lens, and having to swap them could be difficult. There is a small cheap camera store near me, I will see what price they could offer, but I doubt they would have anything close to 300CHF

Yeah, the focus kind of sucks, I wish they kept making the scre-drive version which focuses much faster and quieter.
 
Mark A said:
Which version do you have? I'm really tempted to get one. The non VC one is going for £250 on One Stop. Would it be worth paying £388.46 for the VC version?

The only thing putting me off was this review by Tom Hogan, but after seeing your shots with this lens, they're not at all flat. Not sure if hes talking about portrait photography where a longer focal length helps to blur the background and make the subject stand out more?
Click to expand...

Thom is a Pro nature and landscape photograph. He makes his living selling photos of landscapes and animals and has little use for a lens in this range, except for some landscape work. However, of course he will use his D3X and 14-24 in preference!

The 17-50 range is perfect walkabout and a staple wedding lens.
 
I have the earlier version; honestly, you would be missing out if you are put off.

I get what he is trying to say, but I think he is missing the point somewhat. Its a wide angle lens, its meant to be used as such. The depth argument applies to any wide angle lens (especially the 10-20 or similar). When anyone buys a super wide angle, the natural instinct is to always shoot at its widest. This will always flatten an image because what your eyes are available to see is being brought together into a 2d image so the impact is lost somewhat. The key is not to go at the widest in every instance and look out for angles/features to exaggerate. The 17-50 is different though as its not quite as wide and shooting at 50mm is more than adequate. The reason people go for wide angles in the first place is for impact the 17-50 is that lens.

For portraits, I think its excellent also. Whilst I may not be the best judge for this its very sharp and handles low light very well. I will dig out a couple of shots I took of my little boy yesterday for you to see. For the money, you would have to go some to better its overall ability.
 
dsc0002mm.jpg


dsc0029x.jpg
 
I think Thoms point is that since 17-50 is "walkabout" range it is also fairly boring composure - the standard shot. Thom prefers very wide-angle vistas or close details of landscape feature. The standard composition of normal lenses is not so interesting.


I often shoot this way, with my 10-20mm and my 80-200 2.8 in the bag. (I sometimes cheat and throw in the 50 prime) This forces you to think about composure a little and pushes you in 1 direction or the other, rather than making a compromise composition which all point-and-shoot cameras will do.
 
For landscapes I have always gone nearest the 20mm end of a 10-20 and equally the 17mm of the 17-50. I went through a transition of shooting the same shot with both lenses, but always favoured the slightly less wide angle of the Tamron. Going really wide loses so much depth and naturally flattens a scene losing impact. (Personally) I think ultra wides are best suited to bending angles in architecture. I would prefer to stitch several shots together to get a great wide vista. I know thats not always possible, but I think a panoramic landscape is more inviting that say an ultra wide one. Take King4aDay's http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18050410 as an example.

EDIT: I consider the 17-50 to be a wide angle, not an ultra wide.
 
That lens autofocusses with the D40, doesn't it?

Oh, and is the warranty likely to be European-wise i.e. you could return it here to fix if needed?
 
DB_SamX said:
That lens autofocusses with the D40, doesn't it?

Oh, and is the warranty likely to be European-wise i.e. you could return it here to fix if needed?
Click to expand...

It will focus on a D40 fine (motor in bod lens)
I believe Tamron's warranties are international
 
I'm getting one of these on a canon fit, I might wait a little while to see if the price drops though... Actually as soon as I buy one I'll let y'all know as witinh two weeks it WILL drop in price! :D
 
Gah! Just went to order and onestop are out of canon stock (want the 1.4x Sigma tc as well), rubbish!
 
4248763906_b53a4d9ef8.jpg


Here's an example form my 17-50. i love it! the only negative comment i found from people during my research was a noisy focus motor...

who cares?
 
DB_SamX said:
Anyone know how the lens's quality compares to the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8?
Click to expand...

Bump.

Also, OP, any of these sites on the comparison sites you actually recommend and deliver to the UK. My German is non-existant, but I see no reference to overseas postage.

Cheapest I've seen for UK delivery is OneStop Digital and that was £250+. All Uk stores are still £300+.
 
Anyone know if its worth paying the extra for the vibration reduction version? Does it work as good as Nikons VR?

This lens will be replacing my 18-135mm kit lens, I wanted to get a 16-85mmVR but this looks like it could be a better lens for cheaper. Just wondering whether or not to pay the extra for the vibration reduction for sharper hand held shots in low light etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom