17-50mm Tamron?
- Thread starter t5Nitro
- Start date
TitusvileSurfer
New member
I've never used the 17-50 Tamron, so I have no opinion there. I have used the 17-40 f/4L and 16-35 f/2.8L (mkI), and they both earned their stripes.
TitusvileSurfer
New member
The 17-55 is a GREAT lens
t5Nitro
New member
Wouldn't you rather the L lens vs that one? I'm not in the boat to spend a lot on one of these lenses because I want to pick up the 24-70 sooner or later.
In either case, I've used the 17-50mm in the store and it does have a loud AF. In either case, the clarity of the lens on the 50D anyway was amazing. I printed a picture out.
Just curious on other's thoughts.
17-40L or (f4)
17-50 tamron (f2.8) & 430EX
Or external flash and save for the L? :lol:
One of my friend's.... he knows a guy with very expensive equipment. Pretty much all L series lenses and whatever else you can think of. He said he used the 17-40L, and what he told me is that, "I want to believe that the L is a better lens." He said they are really crisp lenses, but he bought the above tamron 2 nights ago and he said he has pictures of the tamron now and from the 17-40L and he doesn't see much difference.
In fact, he stated that on most canon lenses he put on the camera, at the wide angle part, letters on boxes (at a long range out) for example were more crisp on the tamron than the canon lenses.
Just curious if anyone else had any experience with this.
From what he's been telling me.... tamron won for now.
In either case, I've used the 17-50mm in the store and it does have a loud AF. In either case, the clarity of the lens on the 50D anyway was amazing. I printed a picture out.
Just curious on other's thoughts.
17-40L or (f4)
17-50 tamron (f2.8) & 430EX
Or external flash and save for the L? :lol:
One of my friend's.... he knows a guy with very expensive equipment. Pretty much all L series lenses and whatever else you can think of. He said he used the 17-40L, and what he told me is that, "I want to believe that the L is a better lens." He said they are really crisp lenses, but he bought the above tamron 2 nights ago and he said he has pictures of the tamron now and from the 17-40L and he doesn't see much difference.
In fact, he stated that on most canon lenses he put on the camera, at the wide angle part, letters on boxes (at a long range out) for example were more crisp on the tamron than the canon lenses.
Just curious if anyone else had any experience with this.
From what he's been telling me.... tamron won for now.
TitusvileSurfer
New member
Is he using a full frame or a crop body?
maroun.c
New member
I currently have a Tamron 17-50 2.8 great lense for the price still a bit overmarketed when they claim that it has the same sharpness at 2.8 that 17-55 Nikon or Canon lenses.
Does have a rather load autofocus sound compared to my AF-S focusing Nikon lenses (guess the equivalent to hypersonic focusing in canon?) feels a bit plasticky compared to a pro lense from Nikon or Canon but not something I complain about. Love it for it's very close focusing capabilities which is great for tank shots. Basically I do not complain about anyof the above except the mild softness at 2.8 which coulod be related to having a bad lens maybe but it passed the Front back focusing test and also checked fine when I sent it to Nikon Service center for an overall check as Tamron does not have a service center here.
Another advantage on the Nikon 17-50 2.8 (don't know if it also applies to the Canon equivalent) is that if you lock focus and then zoom in or out there is no need to refocus, forgot what that is called but it exists on very limited models.
In the end if you can afford an L lens or any 2.8 lens from Canon it would be a better but yet a much more expensive choice.
Does have a rather load autofocus sound compared to my AF-S focusing Nikon lenses (guess the equivalent to hypersonic focusing in canon?) feels a bit plasticky compared to a pro lense from Nikon or Canon but not something I complain about. Love it for it's very close focusing capabilities which is great for tank shots. Basically I do not complain about anyof the above except the mild softness at 2.8 which coulod be related to having a bad lens maybe but it passed the Front back focusing test and also checked fine when I sent it to Nikon Service center for an overall check as Tamron does not have a service center here.
Another advantage on the Nikon 17-50 2.8 (don't know if it also applies to the Canon equivalent) is that if you lock focus and then zoom in or out there is no need to refocus, forgot what that is called but it exists on very limited models.
In the end if you can afford an L lens or any 2.8 lens from Canon it would be a better but yet a much more expensive choice.
TitusvileSurfer
New member
The 60D doesn't exist. It hasn't been invented yet, or at least isn't expected to be announced for a good year. Regardless, try the lenses out on a full frame camera and you can REALLY see the difference.
t5Nitro
New member
Yea, I just checked out his picture and he says "my new canon d60". I've never heard of that one... and I can't make out what is under the EOS...
edit: went to google images:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Canon_D60_brighterorange.jpg
edit: went to google images:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Canon_D60_brighterorange.jpg
TitusvileSurfer
New member
Oh my gosh. That is an oooooooooold camera. One of the origional EOS! They have a D30 on display at my local camera store, not for sale though. Next to the 1DsMkIII its like an air show heritage flight or something. He bought that camera as a collector's item. I'm sure he might use it from time to time just to say he does, but with all the lenses your saying he owns, I'm sure he has 4 or 5 EOS cameras. If the D30 is the origional Nintendo Gameboy, the D60 is the origional Nintendo NES, and the 50D is a Wii.
Last edited:
t5Nitro
New member
No, that is the only digital SLR he has. The guy with all the lenses and full frames are his friend's dad. He just uses his friend's dad's equipment once in a while.
I figured it was old... it looked weird.
But yeah, being his only DSLR, that's what he uses all the time. He just bought it maybe a month ago. He said what's cool about that 17-50mm tamron is when he put it on his film SLR, it made basically a fish eye effect.
Pretty neat, for him anyway the effects of the lens changed between the two cameras.
I figured it was old... it looked weird.
But yeah, being his only DSLR, that's what he uses all the time. He just bought it maybe a month ago. He said what's cool about that 17-50mm tamron is when he put it on his film SLR, it made basically a fish eye effect.
Pretty neat, for him anyway the effects of the lens changed between the two cameras.
Not that you would want to but theoretically cross mounts are possible. Again, not that you would want to do it but I have heard of some folks doing it....I think more for the "just because" effect and not for any true purpose. Seems silly to me.
http://www.cameraquest.com/adaptnew.htm
http://www.fotodiox.com/shop/index.php?cPath=27
TitusvileSurfer
New member
He may think the lens changing operation from camera to camera is a cool effect, but it doesn't say much for the quality of the lens itself.
t5Nitro
New member
Yea, but he still uses full frame cameras from his friend and has used the 17-40L on it and like I said he says he WANTS to say L series are so much better... but after comparing the two he isn't that sure.
Just figured maybe someone had some experience with this lens. Looks like nobody has used it though.
Just figured maybe someone had some experience with this lens. Looks like nobody has used it though.
ngn8dogg
New member
what I've seen the photos are pretty good with the tamron. The only thing I've heard is that it hunts in low light, but if your going to use it mostly during the day It wont be a big deal. Its still a coin toss with me. I might just get the L because I may go FF in the future. Photography-on-the.net has a bunch of threads about these two lenses.
