Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 8, 2011, 11:00 AM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Western NY
Posts: 27
Default

Let the research begin!!!

Real user reviews in real world conditions, mostly positive!

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...hp?product=308

A place to toy with IQ against similar lenses:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...Go.x=5&Go.y=13

-sorry about the long link, but it is worth it

Interesting comparison- Canon, Tamron, Sigma. Slight nod to the Sigma, but tests relying on an XSi using Live Mode which isn't that great to begin with

http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2...-17-50mm-f2-8/

Bob Atkins review

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...50_review.html

Tamron didn't fare well in this review, but gotta take the good with the bad

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/rev...pare/index.htm

same site, but this is pretty cool- you can compare ALOT of different lenses against each other under controled conditions!

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/rev...port/index.htm

SLRgear was "plesantly suprised" and "highly reccomends" the Tamron

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...hp/product/355

Well, I visited MANY, MANY other sites regarding this lens and came to my conclusion:

I'M GETTIN' IT

It is what it is-

+Affordable
+good build quality
+small, lightweight
+Sharp images compared to similar lenses
+Good to moderate portrait capabilities
+decent bokeh
+front element does not rotate (polarizer)
-low light + AF = A CHALLENGE
-AF is noisey; varied opinions on how much- most said they can live with it
-little soft in the corners wide open (crop?)
?Zoom/focus is opposite direction of Canon lenses
?no zoom creep, some report too tight?

Well, there goes a few more hours of my life! I just hope other people find this, and it helps them. When I finally get one I will post back with my impressions. Now to find one before everybody else buys 'em up

~RebelYell~
~RebelYell~ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2011, 12:26 AM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Western NY
Posts: 27
Default

Oooook- I am officially a couple of days away from buying a NEW Tamron 17-50!!! Been selling everything that isn't bolted down (and will continue to do so for future glass purchases). Been watching the used ones come and go; they have been selling for almost as much as a new one so might as well spend the extra $$$ and get 6 years of warranty.

As the zero-hour draws near, I am finding myself second-guessing my decision . I am still not 100% sure I should buy this lens??? I have been doing A LOT of reading, and something has caught my eye: Environmental Portraits. When I get the Tamron (or possibly a different lens???) I am going to do a photo shoot with all my kids (4 boys, and gonna borrow a girlfriend for a female subject ) to get to know it and get some practice. I have been thinking long and hard on where I want to shoot them. After I figured it out in my head, and read about the Environmental Portraits, I realized THAT was how I wanted to do it! Without knowing what it was, my mind already gravitated towards it...

That said, do I still want to buy the Tamron for this type of photography? I can see myself doing this semi-professionally VERY easily. It seems like this lens should work, but I would LIKE SOME OF YOUR OPINIONS to back it up- or RECCOMEND A DIFFERENT LENS. The only lens I have at this point is a Canon EF-S 18-135mm IS, and a borrowed Nifty-Fifty. I could sell my 18-135 and might come close to a USED Canon 70-200 F/4 NON-IS??? I know when I get that lens I will be using it A LOT! I say when because I WILL eventually get it (or a non-IS F/2.8)- that focal distance is where i normally shoot my kid's stuff, and I am used to that distance (more or less as my max was 135mm, but I always wanted more zoom). Buuut that leaves me WITHOUT a lens for God only knows how long, and no guarantee that I can find a 70-200? Not to mention if I got it, and wanted to do some landscape shots (which I have been known to do) I would be out of luck .

Sooo, this is where you all come in-

**PLEASE**PLEASE**PLEASE**

COMMENT on this post!!! There are MANY people here that know waaaay more than I do, so please TELL ME YOUR OPINION!!! I won't hold you to it- I promise! I just want to make an informed decision. I don't have a lot of $$$ to throw around, so this decision is very important to me!!! This isn't the last lens I'm gonna buy, but it will be for a while. If I can get something going locally with portraits I could make a few bucks and expand my lens collection- that's the main goal I guess.

After proof reading this I can see how passionate I am about this- I hope you can see it too . I really want to make a run at this, and make informed decisions along the way! I thank you all in advance, and to the people that have already commented. I look forward to hearing from you!

~RebelYell~
~RebelYell~ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2011, 5:41 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

The unstabilized Tamron 17-50/2.8 is the best lens of its kind. Where their ranges overlap, it is superior to the Canon 18-135 you have now, and it's got a constant f/2.8 aperture.

You should be able to figure out what focal lengths you need to get the angles of view you want by using your 18-135, though, of course, it's smaller aperture wouldn't give you the more shallow depth of field or the faster shutter speeds that the Tamron's constant f/2.8 aperture will give you. And if you find that your needs extend beyond 50mm, and don't really include anything shorter than 28mm, another excellent choice, in the same price range, is the Tamron 28-75/2.8.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2011, 7:08 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~RebelYell~ View Post
As the zero-hour draws near, I am finding myself second-guessing my decision
Indecision is normal before you purchase. The normal reaction after
you purchase is a fit of 'buyer remorse'.


You already know where I stand. See post #2 of this thread.

I agree with TCav. The Tamron is the best lens in this class.

Quote:
I am still not 100% sure I should buy this lens??? I have been doing A LOT of reading, and something has caught my eye: Environmental Portraits. When I get the Tamron (or possibly a different lens???) I am going to do a photo shoot with all my kids (4 boys, and gonna borrow a girlfriend for a female subject )
The Tamron is a good portrait lens. This was taken at 36mm f/4
http://pix.ie/corkpix/2446392/size/2200

36mm f/2.8
http://pix.ie/corkpix/2446457/size/2400

Sharpness is really excellent at f/5.6 - f/11
http://pix.ie/corkpix/2511537/size/2400


Low light at f/5.6 using tripod
http://pix.ie/corkpix/2511048/size/2400

Quote:
.....and a borrowed Nifty-Fifty.
The 50mm f1.8 is a good portrait lens, but 50mm is quite
tight for indoor shots. Your environmental portraits won't have
a lot of environment in them


Quote:
I could sell my 18-135 and might come close to a USED Canon 70-200 F/4 NON-IS???
The 70-200mm f/4L is a very fine lens, but it is a very different animal to
the lenses you have mentioned so far.

Quote:
and no guarantee that I can find a 70-200?
Used 70-200mm f/4 (non-IS) come up for sale quite often, usually
when someone is upgrading to the f/2.8 IS version.

Quote:
Not to mention if I got it, and wanted to do some landscape shots (which I have been known to do) I would be out of luck .
The Tamron is a great landscape lens. I haven't taken many landscape
shots with mine yet.
http://pix.ie/corkpix/2495437/size/800
http://pix.ie/corkpix/2448843/size/800
corkpix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2011, 7:52 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Calicajun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Quartz Hill, CA
Posts: 3,455
Default

Just my 2 cents on 17-50mm lenses. I have owned the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 OC, the Simga 17-50mm f2.8 OC and the Canon (well the wife owns this one) 17-55mm f2.8 IS lens. To me the Sigma 17-50 lens was far above the Tamron in IQ and focus speed. The Canon seems to be a bit better at locking in the focus every shot but not by much if at all. I would suggest the Sigma 17-50mm lens out ot the three. So why do I have the Canon 17-55mm lens in that case? Because the wife said she wanted the Canon and she is the one that gives the OK for me to buy my camera gear as needed (wanted). So I keep her happy and the house stays happy.
__________________
Comments always welcome.
Calicajun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2011, 8:29 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calicajun View Post
To me the Sigma 17-50 lens was far above the Tamron in IQ and focus speed.
I'd be surprised to find a big difference in quality between these two lenses.
Both are regarded as very good. Do you reckon the better IQ was down to
the image stabilisation in the Sigma?

Most independent tests show the Tamron to be sharper than it's
stabilised (VC) sister and the Sigma 17-50mm OS.

You can compare the two at various apertures and focal lengths
here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=3&APIComp=2

The Tamron looks significantly better to me, especially near the frame edges.

Quote:
The Canon seems to be a bit better at locking in the focus
I'd expect the Canon USM to be much faster than the Tamron. I find
the Tamron reasonably fast and accurate, although it is a bit noisy.

Quote:
Because the wife said she wanted the Canon and she is the one that gives the OK for me to buy my camera gear as needed (wanted). So I keep her happy and the house stays happy.
It must be nice to have so many high quality lenses to share between you.
My brother has just bought the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8, but I haven't had the opportunity
to play with it yet.
corkpix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2011, 12:40 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Calicajun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Quartz Hill, CA
Posts: 3,455
Default

Well first please keep in mind that the statements I make are just my opinions and may cause flaming and flogging to my person. I took pictures with the Tamron 17-50 VC against a Canon 28-135 lens both shot on a tripod then looked at them at 100% on the computer. To me the pictures looked the same, just not enough improvement in IQ for me to justify keeping the lens. Did the same test (a year later) with the Sigma 17-50 and noticed a nice improvement in IQ over the 28-135 Canon lens. Then compared the Sigma (picture saved on computer) to the Canon and didn't see much if any difference in IQ. At least I didn't but now we are back to the wife thing and that is a whole other subject. The Canon did seem to be a bit faster to focus but not much if any at all. If it was just my choose I would have gone with the Sigma and saved a few hundred dollars (back to that wife thing again) plus had a six year warranty. Then again I haven't heard too many people (alway a couple) complain about the Tamron 17-50 VC.

As for to many high end lenses, not sure one can have to many lenses.

Gear list
Canon 7D
Canon T1i (wife's)
Canon 10-22
Canon 24-105
Canon 50 f1.8 (seemed like a good idea at the time)
Canon 70-300 (not the "L" version)
Canon 17-55 f2.8 (wife's)
Canon 55-250 (wife's)
Notice a brand trend here? All this gear and not enough talent to go with it all.
Happy Shooting.
__________________
Comments always welcome.
Calicajun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2011, 12:44 PM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Western NY
Posts: 27
Default

***!!YES!!***

Keep those comments coming!!!

To the Tamron vs. Sigma:

Of all the reviews that I have read, and there are A-LOT of them, the Tamron bests the Sigma in IQ 8-9 out of 10 times- majority rules in my world!

@ Corkpix-

-Thank you soooo much for providing real world examples!!! What body are you using? I think after some practice and getting to know the individual lens, it could make a very good portrait lens

-I must say, I am very jealous of you- you have shorelines AND castles!!! . I absolutely LOVE costal shorelines! After the kids have grown and moved on, my wife and I are thinking of moving to Maine, somewhere on the coast.

-Indecision, I have MUCH! But no remorse afterwards, I research everything TO DEATH so I know I got the best XXX I could afford .

-The 70-200 ABSOLUTELY will not work for environmental portraits, that is for sure. I don't know why I threw that in there?? I will get one someday, and it will get a lot of use!

@ Calicajun-

-Oh, wives... Mine's favorite saying is "I'm a show me kinda girl". I have to prove to her (with the kids photo shoot) that I can do this! It's kind of a surprise, portrait collages for her to hang in her new office (and FREE ADVERTISING for me hehe) so shhhh- don't say anything

-Thank you for the input on the Sigma! It is a good lens, no doubt! But it is out of my price range at this point. I can live with a bit slower, noisey AF. The IQ is there, that's the major point!

Thank you
Thank you
Thank you!!!

Please keep the comments rolling

~RebelYell~
~RebelYell~ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2011, 12:59 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Of the stabilized, large aperture, standard zooms, I'd agree that the Sigma is better than the Tamron, but the unstabilized Tamron is better than either of them, and gives the stabilized Canon a run for it's money.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Sep 20, 2011 at 1:02 PM.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2011, 1:02 PM   #20
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Western NY
Posts: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
Of the stabilized, large aperture, standard zooms, I'd agree that the Sigma is better than the Tamron, but the unstabilized Tamron is better than either the Sigma or the Tamron stabilized lenses, and gives the stabilized Canon a run for it's money.

AGREED! Thank you!!!

~RebelYell~
~RebelYell~ is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:03 PM.