File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
What do you guys think about the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for Canon? I'm going to use it in a XTi, instead of buying a kit lens, i'm thinking of getting this one.

Any user who has this lens may give a pro/cons about it?

How is it under low light conditions?

Thanks in advance
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 2.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2006:05:30 19:06:25Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width600Image Height459
>> Anonymous
Great lens if you don't have money to purchase the 17-40L.
>> Anonymous
You will probably find that at F2.8, you'll need to push iso to 1600 often in low light, but it doesnt get better than this on a zoom for the time being.

On the other hand, I've heard it's impressively sharp, and online samples kinda confirm it.

I personally use the 28-75 though, and you know... I kinda feel like I fucked up, I think the 17-50 might have been a better choice, god damn it.
>> Anonymous
Op here, that's actually one pro for it, the price tag.
>> Anonymous
Great lens even if you have the money to purchase the 17-40L and realize that life has other expenses besides camera lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>187723
>>187721
Thanks a lot
>> Anonymous
I was planning on getting the $176 Canon 18-55 f/3.5-5 IS but was disappointed in the sharpness and slow shutter speeds. Is this lens (at $440) worth the 2.5x price as my first and only lens for the XTi? Do you think the IS on the 18-55 would be enough to compensate in most cases?
>> Anonymous
>>187740
I was thinking about the $325 Canon 50mm f/1.4 to go along with the 18-55 IS, but this Tamron thingy is a slight bit cheaper than both those lenses combined.
>> Anonymous
>>187740
Nope, cause that's still one stop you're gaining. Objects are still going to move, even if your camera doesn't as much.
>> Anonymous
>>187747

Yeah, but I was just thinking that most of my blurry photos were caused by my hands moving (from 1/2 seconds to 1/40 seconds) rather than the subject moving. My point and shoot goes down to f/2.6 and my shutter speed is always slow. I understand that I can raise the ISO significantly more than my p&s, but I think IS would still be better.

If the subject is moving, the picture is not as bad as if your hands are shaking. IS should let you photograph still objects in lower light than the lens with the wider aperture right? It around halves the shutter speed right?
>> Anonymous
I loev wide so I've been looking at the Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX DG. Would it fall into this range? Shittier? Experiences?
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>187786
Pretty useless if you're not shooting film/full frame, IMO. Just get an ultrawide and a wide-normal zoom instead.
>> Anonymous
>>187787

So what's a good ultrawide prime for a Canon body? No fisheye thx.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>187795
Whoops I meant ultrawide zoom. Canon 10-22, Sigma 10-22, Tamron 11-16, Tokina 12-24 are all good options.
>> Anonymous
>>187802

I got your point, just thought that two zooms will amount to a lot of cash to cover the range. But I guess that's the answer I was subconsciously looking for all the time - a justification to go 10-22 and damn the consequences.

Anon thanks you for justifying my spending mania, dear tripfag.
>> Anonymous
What do you guys think about the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for Canon?

FOCUS, PLEASE
>> Anonymous
>>187759
Yeah it does half it. Consider this,though: you'd be using a wide angle to long standard lens. You're more likely to find the additional speed handy than the IS. That's my take on it at least.
>> Anonymous
>>187809
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx
>> Anonymous
It's my main lens on 40D. I like its constat f/2.8 and sharpness. I'd say go for it.
>> Anonymous
>>187712
Get it, great lens. And super dooper great value for your money lens.
>> Anonymous
ef-s 17-55 f/2.8 IS is superior
>> Anonymous
>>187855
It's almost 3 times the price.
>> Anonymous
Someone else wants to leave his opinion on this lens?
>> Anonymous
Nikonfag here,
I am also deciding weather or not to buy this or the nikon version which costs around $1,200. The only reason why I am hesitant with the tamron is the build quality and the price. Moreover, I am also looking at the 16-85 f3.5 which costs less and covers more range than the 17-55, however it is not as fast as the 17-55, yet it has VR. Does anyone know how effective the VR is when compared to the 2.8 aperture, in other words, which is better, high apertures or VR ? As for the OP, I think the tamron is a great lens for the price, the only thing I would be worried about is build quality.
>> Anonymous
>>187972
VR will only reduce hand shake, not motion blur. VR = better for landscapes 'n shit, bigger aperture = better for sports etc.

Alo, I'd def get the Tamron and something like a flash or another lens or a couple of filters, w/e, instead of just getting a slightly optically better lens, even though the build quality is shitty.
>> Anonymous
Tamron lenses are generally extremely shitty and not particularly sharp.

Get a decent prime instead.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>187986
This one isn't. This one is great.
>> Anonymous
I returned this lens in fast succession as I saw the extent of vignetting, which it causes. Especially with f2.8 the problem is extreme in entire focal length range.

You might verify this finding on several well known online sites, such as Photozone (dot de, not dot com!). The well known author of this site uses Norman Koren's Imatest software. With a Canon EOS-350D aka Rebel XT (1.6 magnification factor) this lens showed 1.0 step darkening in corners. Your mileage may vary, I found this really annoying. By the way, the same lens with a Nikon D200 shows already whopping 1.4 steps darkening of the edges, Nikon has slightly smaller sensors. This means that Tamron calculated too tight the image circle for this lens.

Do yourself a favor and take rather the quite excellent Tamron 17-35 f/2.8 Di full 35mm frame lens! You will like your images much more, and you will be able to use the same lens with a full frame body.
>> Anonymous
>>187990

That's funny.
Because it looks blurry and shitty to me.
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_17-50_review3.html

For $400 there are better lenses out there.
>> Anonymous
that lens is ugly as fuck

jesus christ, Tamron, give design an effort
>> Anonymous
Get the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC instead. Same price and better quality.
>> Anonymous
>>187996

DO NOT QUESTION HEAVYWEATHER

everything he uses is the best quality, the best performance and can drive nails

he uses nothing but the best
>> Anonymous
>>187994
Nikon uses a larger 1.5x crop for their DX cameras which is why vignetting is more apparent.
>> Anonymous
sigma > tamron

tamron is like store brand stuff
like wal-mart sugar or whatever
it is ok and will do the job
but it is bland and lacking

sigma has some very bad lenses too but overall quality is better
>> Anonymous
tokina > sigma > tamron
>> sage desage
>>188013
haha oh wow
>> Anonymous
Any Tokina lens f2.8?
>> Anonymous
>>188158
wat
>> Anonymous
>>188158
16-50
>> Anonymous
ITT: Off-Brand brand fags.
>> Anonymous
>OP HERE
>CHECK THIS OUT GUISE

http://rancid.outwar.com/page/2391
>> Anonymous
The Tamron 17-50 and 28-75 are both fucking sharp.
There is always, however, some degree of sample variation.

In the case of Sigma, I honestly find both of their versions of these lenses (the 18-50 2.8 and 24-70 2.8) to be MUCH SOFTER from sample pictures, and I'm not talking about looking at them at 100%, they do look softer. Furthermore, quality control and sample variation within Sigma is pretty much at hit-or-miss level. You either get a good lens (decent in the case of these lenses) or a lump of shit.

How that makes Sigma better than Tamron? I don't quite know, but they're generally more expensive than Tamrons even though they suck more.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>188190
My Sigma is on par in terms of sharpness with the Tamron wide open... But Sigma's sample variation is pretty 50/50, I tested mine in the shop to make sure it wasn't shit.

< 100% @ f/2.8, 1/20th sec.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D80Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern834Focal Length (35mm Equiv)27 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:05:15 01:02:59Exposure Time1/20 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Exposure Bias-0.7 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width686Image Height752RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
>>188200
good thing you did
>> Anonymous
>>188190How that makes Sigma better than Tamron?
Primarily build quality. Tamron lenses tend to be extremely plasticky, loose, and poorly made. Worse than a lot of kit lenses. The Sigma EX lenses are pretty decent. Not quite up to top-end build quality, but closer than most.

Unfortunately optical quality on Sigma lenses is hit or miss.
>> Anonymous
>>188200

Well, I don't want to be starting any shit or anything.

But that looks pretty bad. There's a lack of contrast and maybe it's ISO 400 but it's really smudged.
>> Anonymous
>>188269
It's using a Nikon
>> Anonymous
>>188269
Meh, my Tamron -owning buddy said that it looks very similar to his copy (and there's a no name Fujiyama filter on the front - for protection and whanot), been happy with the lens so far and any softness is easily corrected by just a little USM in Photoshop.
>> Anonymous
havent used the tamron but im looking at it to compliment the primes now.

r.e IS/VR vs fast aperture:

remember too that when using the slower zooms with IS youll be shooting wide open and of course the quality will be questionable.
compare this to fast apertures at least being able to stop down a lil bit can give better results and still have a wider aperture....

me, i obviously prefer speed over IS/VR and i would honestly even find 2.8 toooooo slow let alone 3.5-5.6 :O
>> Anonymous
Any actual owner of this lens?
>> Anonymous
>>188556
Heavyweather is.
>> Anonymous
>>188592

he's got the PROmaster version

because that's what the pros use
>> Anonymous
>>187986
Op here, i'm also going to get the Canon 50mm f/1.4,the Tamron and the battery grip, seems like a nice set up for night photography.
>> Anonymous
>>188740
Difference is that it can drive nails right?
>> Anonymous
Badass kit. Have fun OP
>> Anonymous
yes I am about to switch to Canon. I am really sick of Nikon. It's a marketing company really... they spend so much money on advertising ...but Canon let their products to sell themselves.
>> Anonymous
>>189391
>>189391
obvious troll is obvious
>> Anonymous
>>189391
troll, really, who gives a fuck about marketing ?
>> Anonymous
>>189514

Sony Alpha's users
>> Anonymous
>>189532

i lol´d

CANON FTW.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>187712
It really is a fantastic lens for the price. I've got a copy, and I use it more than any other lens I own. It's great for general purpose stuff.
>> okto
>>189532
lawl
>> Anonymous
Does it has any problem with focus speed? Is it too slow focusing?
>>187712
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>191022
It's not the fastest focusing lens in the world by any means, but it's more than enough for most applications.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>189391
>> Anonymous
>>191023
how about build quality ? I heard bad stories about them.
>> Anonymous
>>191515

>>188190How that makes Sigma better than Tamron?
>>Primarily build quality. Tamron lenses tend to be extremely plasticky, loose, and poorly made. Worse than a lot of kit lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>191516
I know build quality sucks, but how much does it suck ? Will this thing fall apart if I lay a hand on it ?
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>191515
The build quality is actually not bad. It's somewhat plasticky, but it feels pretty solid. I mean, I wouldn't drop mine off a roof, but it's high enough quality that I don't mind man-handling it a bit.
>> Anonymous
>>191518
It wont.
>> Anonymous
is there such a thing as a standard zoom that is self contained?

doesn't extend during zoom or focus
>> Anonymous
>>191552
You mean it's size is fixed?
>> Anonymous
>>191552

17-40 on a full frame camera, perhaps.
>> Anonymous
>>191552
There are lenses that have internal zoom functions.
>> Anonymous
>>192031You mean it's size is fixed?

like a 70-200, it doesn't extend ever during focus or zoom

>>19203517-40 on a full frame camera, perhaps.

meh, maybe, you need a UV filter for it to be "contained"

>>192037There are lenses that have internal zoom functions.

no shit? i'm asking if there's a standard zoom that does it
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>191552


soup
>> Anonymous
>>192046

a 70-210 isn't a standard zoom

unless your idea of standard starts at telephoto ranges
>> Anonymous
>>191552

Why does it matter to you?
>> Anonymous
>>192049
It could be a standard zoom on a 4x5 camera!
>> Anonymous
>>192053

i dunno, curious and would be neato if someone made one
>> Anonymous
>>192067

The Tokina 12-24mm f4 on an APS-C camera is the closest I know of to that.
>> Anonymous
>>191552
Google, motherfucker, do you use it?
>> Anonymous
Op here, i got this model from a friend that has it, so tomorrow i'm going to test it out, so far it's quite nice, and the buzz when focusing is quite nice actually.

I WILL BE BACK WITH PHOTOS