Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 upgrade opinions

xRowan

xRowan

xRowan

Associate
Joined
19 Jul 2010
Posts
234
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 v Sigma 17-70 f/2.8 upgrade opinions

I have the Canon 600d and want an upgrade from the kit 18-55 lens. I have had my eye on the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 because it's price and performance. The Sigma 17-70 f/2.8 seems to have all the features of the Tamron too. I will be using it for cinematography and party photography. Any other suggestions would be great! :D Cheers!
 
Last edited:
As your interested in video, I would say the VC version is probably a must.
I would have thought something like a stabilised Tamron 24-70 + 5Dii would be ideal though.
 
He's on a 600D, looking at £300 lenses and you're suggesting a c. £2000 setup change? Ooookay then ;)

Don't forget the Sigma 17-70, good though it is, drops to f/4.0 at the long end which can be a pain. If you feel like splashing out, the Canon 17-55 IS is a brilliant lens, short of that the Tamron 17-50 VC is probably your best bet given how low light party photography is and how useful stabilisation is for video.

That said, the 17-50 2.8 style lenses aren't much better for video than the stabilised basic kit 18-55 lenses so it might be worth getting a prime lens such as the Sigma 30 f/1.4 instead to allow you to blur the backgrounds that little bit more, as well as providing a much better low-light lens for use in party photography.
 
The VC is also a bit odd on the 17-50mm. For stills, you have to hold the shutter part way, the VC kicks in, settles down and then you can shoot - not sure how that would work for movies, but might be worth checking out a few reviews.
 
If video is on the cards it might be worth a look at the sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS HSM it has reviewed very well and the combination of OS and the near silent HSM motor should be ideal for video use allthough dSLR video is always better when manually focussed and an external mike is used.
 
Sorry to thread jack, but I'm also considering upgrading from the 18-55 IS, which frankly is soft as dog poo, especially for landscape stuff, and is just so slow in low light.

Is the Tamron sharp enough for landscape at small apertures? I'd mainly be using it for urban, party, and landscape, shooting. It's a toss-up between the Canon 10-22 (or Tokina 11-18mm), which wouldn't be fast enough for "out and about" or as versatile, but would be better for landscape and urban, or the Tamron, which would be a bit of a compromise on the wide end, but would provide better all-round use in theory.
 
I upgraded to the Tamron last November, I don't do video but for photos it's very impressive. I went for the non-VC version as the general consensus was that it was sharper, I have no regrets as of yet :) Yes the focus is slightly noisy however with video manual focus is probably your best bet anyway as previously said. I have it fitted to my 500D.

Devrij, the lens is great for landscape and at 2.8 is pretty darn good too! I also have the Sigma 10-20mm which was my goto lens for landscape but now it really is a toss up, obviously if I need 10-17mm the Sigma will be used, but most cases these days I can get away with 17. Below are two examples of night time landscapes taken at 2.8, the 2.8 really comes into it's own with these as it helps to reduce exposure time and in turn gives you static stars, and just to show how sharp it can be.


Full Moon Wreck by M+M Morrison, on Flickr

A Glowing Ruin by M+M Morrison, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Haha that's last years, would have to re-upload to Flickr etc etc :p 2013 is a different story, back to the bottom it has gone and out of the way.

Back on topic though :P If you have the money go for the Canon 17-55 2.8, that is the only lens for crop I would go for over the Tamron in this focal length. If you go second had you can get them around the £400 mark.
 
ishamy said:
I upgraded to the Tamron last November, I don't do video but for photos it's very impressive. I went for the non-VC version as the general consensus was that it was sharper, I have no regrets as of yet :) Yes the focus is slightly noisy however with video manual focus is probably your best bet anyway as previously said. I have it fitted to my 500D.

Devrij, the lens is great for landscape and at 2.8 is pretty darn good too! I also have the Sigma 10-20mm which was my goto lens for landscape but now it really is a toss up, obviously if I need 10-17mm the Sigma will be used, but most cases these days I can get away with 17. Below are two examples of night time landscapes taken at 2.8, the 2.8 really comes into it's own with these as it helps to reduce exposure time and in turn gives you static stars, and just to show how sharp it can be.


Full Moon Wreck by M+M Morrison, on Flickr

A Glowing Ruin by M+M Morrison, on Flickr
Click to expand...

These were both taken at 2.8?

I ask as it appears that the whole scene is pretty sharp, which I though a higher f number would have produced (bear with me I'm new to this photography stuff)

Great pick by the way, really need to get one of these lenses!
 
Last edited:
^^ It was taken at f/2.8 judging by the Exif. If you're judging by what look like 500*281 files, then I think all you need to do is just learn to apply an unsharp mask after resizing your files - a lens's sharpness won't really change what a 500*281 file looks like.
 
No, just the internal one. A shotgun style external mic might not pick it up as much but it is very noticeable. It's easily the loudest lens I've got but I think you'd be better off seeing if you can borrow one to see for yourself.
 
Wow your tamron looks well nice!

Mine was an utter piece of ********, not just that I had to return it and it took 3+ months to get my money back :(

Never touching that lens again
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom