Tamron 17-50 2.8 - should i consider anything else?

Skidder

Skidder

Skidder

Man of Honour
Joined
28 Nov 2007
Posts
12,747
Hello

I have a 400d with an EF50 1.8 mk II, the kit lens (the early one with no USM or IS) and 75-300 4 to 5.6

I would like to replace the kit lens - I wanted to anyway but the 50mm prime has really shown me the difference. I think I will buy a Tamron EF 17-50 2.8 but before I do, does anyone have any suggestions? Is the Sigma that goes up to 70mm poor?

I don't think I want to spend as much as the canon 17-55 2.8 unless used or I'm persuaded that it really is that much better. Any help would be appreciated! Thanks
 
Last edited:
The Tamron is a great lens and I have one myself.

I have no experience of the Sigma you mention but Sigma also do an 18-50mm 2.8 for slightly less money than the Tamron and this is also a very sharp lens.

Neither would let you down, but I would say that if you do buy the Tamron, do some tests to ensure you have a good copy. I have heard of a few people who had to exchange their first one due to sharpness/focussing issues.
 
turtle1000 said:
The Tamron is a great lens and I have one myself.

I have no experience of the Sigma you mention but Sigma also do an 18-50mm 2.8 for slightly less money than the Tamron and this is also a very sharp lens.

Neither would let you down, but I would say that if you do buy the Tamron, do some tests to ensure you have a good copy. I have heard of a few people who had to exchange their first one due to sharpness/focussing issues.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that's interesting re the Tamron QC issues - I was planning to buy a grey import to save a few £, may be not a great idea!
 
I have the Tamron as well, bought from a Hong kong based online shop and its been great - no focusing or IQ issues at all.
I was using it for 2 months with my 400D while touring asia and a guy in my tour group had the same camera but with the kit lens. The overall quality difference was very obvious in the photos (not artistically, he was a better photographer :P) so I would highly recommend the Tamron as a great kit lens replacement!
 
I had a Tamron (shouldn't have sold it....), anyway, it is a GREAT lens, bargain for the money, it was sharp, good contrast and fast.





[/URL]
 
And I have the Sigma, the Tamron and the Sigma score pretty much evenly in magazine tests, one will favour one and the next mag the other, I suspect this is more down to the slight variability from copy to copy that both companies are, annoyingly known for (it's uncommon to get a poor one but it happens), so In essence both lenses can be thought of as pretty much the same (I love mine).
A couple of things in the Sigma's favour are it's a bit smaller (though no lighter), the HSM versions focus really fast, it's £20 cheaper and if you have a problem the Sigma outlets (there are a couple of service centres with shop fronts) are very helpful and quite cheap (as I found when I dropped my 105mm Macro from great height.), not a lot of good if you don't live near one granted.
I think the Tamron looks better though, and in essence, in this instance I'd say get the one you like the look of as much as anything else.
Tokina do one too , but it's a hefty beast and a bit dearer.
 
Skidder said:
Hello

I have a 400d with an EF50 1.8 mk II, the kit lens (the early one with no USM or IS) and 75-300 4 to 5.6

I would like to replace the kit lens - I wanted to anyway but the 50mm prime has really shown me the difference. I think I will buy a Tamron EF 17-50 2.8 but before I do, does anyone have any suggestions? Is the Sigma that goes up to 70mm poor?

I don't think I want to spend as much as the canon 17-55 2.8 unless used or I'm persuaded that it really is that much better. Any help would be appreciated! Thanks
Click to expand...

I'll read your post better this time the 17-70 you are speaking of is a fine lens for the money but it's got variable aperture and doesn't really occupy the same bracket as the Sigma 18-50EX F2.8 HSM, that I own (or the Tamron) which are fixed aperture.
However for about £220.oo the 17-70 trounces the Canon 17-85IS in value terms, near enough the same image quality, a bit faster at the wide end and losing out on Image stabilisation and 15mm at the long end.
 
Most obvious differences betwen the Tamron 17-50 and the Canon or Nikon counters parts are build quality and focusing speed (Tamron is quite slow and very plastic). The Brokeh is also better on the Can/nikons with slightly better microcontrast.
 
another vote for the sigma 18-50 2.8. remember tho that HSM is only available for NIKON mount version. although ive never found myself wanting it when attached to my 20D.
 
Thanks everybody for your help. I went with the Tamron for £275. Will let you know how i get on in due course (waiting for delivery). :)
 
When you get it, pin a newspaper text page up outside and put your camera on a Tripod, set it to 17mm and Aperture Priority (or Av if you are from the dark side) take pictures of the paper at various different apertures, then do the same at 25mm, then 35mm, then 50mm, moving the tripod correspondingly further away.
View them on your PC screen at about 50% and scan around the picture trying to read the text, some lenses are softer (blurrier) on one side than the other, some have soft spots in the centre.
All lenses are a bit blurrier wide open than stopped down to F5.6-F8 so don't let that worry you, it's localised and fairly consistent areas of softness that dictate a poor copy.
 
Guzzidom said:
When you get it, pin a newspaper text page up outside and put your camera on a Tripod, set it to 17mm and Aperture Priority (or Av if you are from the dark side) take pictures of the paper at various different apertures, then do the same at 25mm, then 35mm, then 50mm, moving the tripod correspondingly further away.
View them on your PC screen at about 50% and scan around the picture trying to read the text, some lenses are softer (blurrier) on one side than the other, some have soft spots in the centre.
All lenses are a bit blurrier wide open than stopped down to F5.6-F8 so don't let that worry you, it's localised and fairly consistent areas of softness that dictate a poor copy.
Click to expand...

ok, thanks very much, will do
 
Text is peculiarly suitable for this because you are familiar with the form and shape of lettering, it's highly detailed and contrasted and are used to seeing it pin sharp, any other detailed image (like, say a tree or bush) and you wouldn't see the soft areas so readily.
Just don't use page 3
 
A couple of thoughts. Do you have any thoughts on going full frame in the future? If so, forget the 17-50, as it won't fit on an FF body.
Secondly, I've owned a Tammy 17-50, and whilst sharp, I didn't think that it has anything like the colour vibrancy of the Canon 17-40 F4L that has replaced it. Of course you're paying a lot more for the 17-40, but you do also get improved AF and weather sealing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom