File :-(, x, )
17-50 Anonymous
what does /p/ think of the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 XR Di II?

I do lots of large groups shots with alien bees, so I'm normally at 28mm and f/11 on a film body.

Recently I moved to a crop 40D and got the 17-85 with it. Unfortunately, it is softer in the corners (blurry faces on larger group shots) than my 28-105 on a film body.

I don't ever use IS, so I rented the 17-40L for a couple of weeks, and found that it was good for my group shots, but I had to change lenses often because it isn't as long as the 28-105 that I'm used to. Also, it is beastly heavy, and I don't like that.

I heard from a friend that the tamron 17-50 is sharper in the corners than the canon 17-85, and isn't as heavy because it doesn't have IS. Does anyone on /p/ have experience with this lens, as I can't find one to try out before I buy it.
>> Anonymous
Why don't you ever use IS?
>> Anonymous
17-40: weight 500g
17-50: weight 434g

WOW! THAT SEVENTY GRAMS IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIFE AND DEATH
>> Anonymous
Tamrons are no where near as high a quality glass as Canon's. There is more color noise in the glass.
They cost less, and you get less.
so it depends on how serious you are.
But I'd save up, and get Canon lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>273359
f/11 @ 1/250 is my most common setting, as I'm typically doing set up shots with strobes.
>>273360
Didn't realize that the tamron lens was that heavy.
>> Anonymous
Is the sharpness really so unbearable with the 17-85 you had?

I've heard a lot of complaints from some of the residents of /p/ on their experiences with bad copies and so on with the Tamron lenses. Kind of spooked me on them.
>> Anonymous
>>273366

The Tamron is a f/2.8 zoom! You're going to get some weight at larger apertures. The 17-40 is f/4, but chunkier and more durable build. It balances out.
>> Anonymous
If you don't mind the cost, you don't get much better than the 17-55 2.8 on the crop bodies.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
I know someone on /p/ owned one of those Tamron 17-50 lenses. Hopefully they will chip in with their opinion. I seem to remember they gave it up though as they were not happy with it.
>> Anonymous
>>273363
Which canon lens, as I already own the 17-55 and 17-85
>>273367
Yes, the sharpness is unbearable. I'm using the 28-105 II right now, because I don't like the 17-85, but that pushes me back 10-20 feet than using 28 on full frame or using 17. So, I may end up just getting the 5D mkII eventually, but I still have to work, and I don't want to throw money away on the 5D mkI.

I normally do shots like this with double the amount of people, but similar conditions.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aagriego/2919532389/
>>273372
I may end up with that lens, but my goal is to spend less than 500 dollars on equipment between now and jan because my CPA told me to hold off on buying any more equipment until this year is over.
>> Anonymous
17-40 = 475 g
17-85 = 475 g
17-50 = 430 g
28-105 = 375 g

YEAH IT'S BEASTLY HEAVY FUCK
>> Anonymous
>> Which canon lens, as I already own the 17-55 and 17-85

>> I may end up with that lens

uhhhh, what the fuck
>> Anonymous
Credit Protection Association
Commonwealth Pharmacists Association
Comprehensive Performance Assessment
Cost Per Action
Construction Products Association
Centre for Policy on Ageing
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
Centre for Psychological Astrology
Care Programme Approach
Crop Protection Association
Christian Police Association
Consumer Protection Association
Chemical Products for Analysis
Composites Processing Association
Communicating Process Architectures
Competing Pipers Association
Centre for Performing Arts
Canadian Physiotherapy Association
Canadian Paraplegic Association
Centre for Policy Alternatives
Combat Poverty Agency
>> Anonymous
>>273374

i've had two of them. both are literally in use as paper-weights now

if what you're interested in is the wide end of this piece, think again. take it from someone who is extremely optimistic about quality of glass: this lens is shit. decent at the telephoto end

when i had the lens it was used on a 40d body as well, for what it's worth
>> Anonymous
>>273374
IIRC, Jeremo and Heavyweather, though the latter's was branded "Promaster" for some reason. IIRC and AFAIK, Jeremo still has his and is still satisfied with it, and Heavyweather was satisfied with it but ditched it when he moved to a larger format it didn't cover and an all-prime setup.
>> Anonymous
so you already have a 17-55, a 17-85 and a 28-105, used a 17-40 and are now wondering about a 17-50?

i think this is another one of those newbs pretending to have other stuff so anons don't recommend those but give better opinions on the one the newb has his eyes on

it's like that faggot with the Canon 10D with "a bunch of EF-S lenses" or the guy who has a 5D who wants a pocketable camera like a G9 for "candids of kids in the park"
>> Anonymous
>all-prime setup

WUT LOL
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
I own the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for the Canon EF mount.

All I know is that it's plenty sharp enough for me, I love having constant f/2.8, and it beats the shit out of my plastic fantastic Tamron 28-80 3.5-5.6 that I used to use.
>> Anonymous
the 17-50 has really bad field curvature so avoid shooting walls or rows of people standing in one line and you will be fine

it also makes a very good tool to scare children or squirrels lol, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl6NY4tFcG0
>> Anonymous
>>273442
I was considering the 17-50, but that video just changed my mind.
>> Anonymous
>>273474

Relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKxCzOYGWyU&feature=related
>> Anonymous
>>273442
What's great is that my screw-drive copy of the 17-50 for Nikon is more quiet than the 18-55 in the video.
>> Anonymous
because body AF is still more silent than a DC motor? durrrrrr
>> Anonymous
lens volume does not have an effect on image quality
>> SAGE
>>273566
street photography. louder is worse and can be attention getting when its unwanted.
>> Anonymous
lol stalkers that can't talk to women must sneak up on them with silent af
>> Anonymous
>>273566

too bad those loud AF motors are also slow and inaccurate
>> Anonymous
>>273568
If you're AF'ing street photography, you're probably doing it wrong.
>> Anonymous
af'ing at all, you're doing it wrong.
>> Anonymous
>>273642
Slow, maybe, but the body was responsible for focus accuracy
>> Anonymous
focusing at all, you're doing it wrong
>> Anonymous
Relevant:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/eos30d/discuss/72157601167656762/
http://www.flickr.com/groups/eos30d/discuss/72157604126940890/
>> Anonymous
>>273971but the body was responsible for focus accuracy

you can have the world's best AF sensors with 72 AF points, if your lens is still using a piece of shit DC step motor then it won't be accurate at all
>> Anonymous
Canon just needs to make a 24-105 f/4 IS for EF-S coverage

so 15-65 f/4 IS, price it at $800 bam, instant hit
>> Anonymous
>>274018

It may happen eventually, judging by the educated guessing going on.
>> Anonymous
what educated guessing going on? is that sarcasm?
>> Anonymous
>>274164

what part of DC step motor do you not understand?

basic shit
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
>>273568

Then do what HCB did: manually prefocus and wait for the decisive moment
>> Anonymous
>>274184

That's the worst advice ever given on /p/.
>> Anonymous
>>274165
The tamron 17-50 does not have a dc step motor.

Prove me wrong.

>>273568
The mirror slap on a 40D is louder than the focusing motor on a 17-50.

>>274186
Hyperfocal
Google it.
>> Anonymous
>>274186

lol no, it's actually pretty decent advice.
>> anonymous
From what the OP is saying, and the pictures he's shooting I don't understand why he wants the 17-50. It would seem that the 28-70 from Tamron would cover the range that he usually shoots in, and it's a 35mm crop, so you're shooting in the sweet spot. Do you really need the wide end? If not, the 28-70mm is the better lens. (I own both by the way)
>> Anonymous
Reviews say the Tamron 17-50 is amazing, might get a 450D with that as "backup" to my Nikons.
>> Anonymous
>>274345
>>normally at 28mm and f/11 on a film body
means that he needs a 17 on a crop body

Looks like the tamron 17-50 is sharper than the canon 17-85 @17.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&am
p;APIComp=0&Lens=400&Camera=396&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=251
>> Anonymous
>>274190

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikHtZoDkInk
>> Anonymous
>>274887
A friend of mine used to work in a pawn shop, and they were always told to place the guitars on a table when they were demoing them so that the table amplifies the sound.

Show me a video without the camera on a massive wood amplifier, with the lens cap off, and which also has the mirror slap sound so that I can compare.

Otherwise, the video is worthless.
>> Anonymous
butthurt tamronfag is butthurt