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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 17, 2012, 8:33 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 35
Default Is tamron 17-50 f2.8 (non-is) any good?

Or more specifically is it an upgrade over canon 17-85mm?


My goal is to have 3 solid lenses to go along with my 60D. I am interested in all kinds of photography but i take alot of photos of moving dogs so i need a good telezoom (have 70-300 IS USM, saving for a 70-200 f4 IS). I have just ordered a canon 60mm macro, which should give me a nice start in the macro department. And then i need a general indoor/outdoor, family/portrait lens that could also possibly serve me for some landscape shots. I got the canon 17-85 as a kit lens and have been using it as an allround lens with some mixed results. The tamron is obviously faster and has a shorter reach but im thinking that it may perform better indoors and possibly at the wide end? Any other suggestions here? I can mention that canon 15-85 and canon 17-55 f2.8 are out of my price range right now. I could afford a used 17-40L f4 but on a crop sensor that lens is not wide enough..

I appreciate any help,

Sasha
sasaboss is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 17, 2012, 10:55 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

The Tamron 17-50/2.8 (non-is) is a fine lens, and an especially fine lens for the money.

I will say that it's capable of things that the Canon 17-85 is not, but the reverse is also true. The Canon 15-85 would be a good replacement for the 17-85, but the Tamron 17-50/2.8 would be more of a suppliment.
__________________
  • 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 Apr 17, 2012, 11:13 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sasaboss View Post
Or more specifically is it an upgrade over canon 17-85mm?


My goal is to have 3 solid lenses to go along with my 60D. I am interested in all kinds of photography but i take alot of photos of moving dogs so i need a good telezoom (have 70-300 IS USM, saving for a 70-200 f4 IS).
The 70-300mm IS is a pretty good zoom lens. The 70-200mm is a
bit better if you can live without the extra 100mm.

Quote:
I have just ordered a canon 60mm macro, which should give me a nice start in the macro department. And then i need a general indoor/outdoor, family/portrait lens that could also possibly serve me for some landscape shots.
As well as being a very good 1:1 macro lens, the Canon 60mm is also
an excellent general purpose prime lens. It will make a very fine portrait
lens.


Quote:
I got the canon 17-85 as a kit lens and have been using it as an allround lens with some mixed results. The tamron is obviously faster and has a shorter reach but im thinking that it may perform better indoors and possibly at the wide end? Any other suggestions here?
The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is as good as or better than any other lens
in the same price range. At most focal lengths, it can match or
exceed the performance of lenses costing twice as much.

The other star performers at this range of FL are the Sigma 17-50mm OS
and the Canon 17-55mm IS USM that you mentioned. Both have IS/OS
but they are quite a bit more expensive than the Tamron.

Quote:
I can mention that canon 15-85 and canon 17-55 f2.8 are out of my price range right now. I could afford a used 17-40L f4 but on a crop sensor that lens is not wide enough..
If 17mm is not wide enough, why do you want to buy the Tamron?
corkpix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2012, 11:39 AM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 35
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corkpix View Post

If 17mm is not wide enough, why do you want to buy the Tamron?
Ok maybe i got it all wrong now, but i figured that canon 17-40L is a full frame lens therefore offering a different range on aps-c. Opposed to tamron which is just a crop sensor lens.
sasaboss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2012, 11:45 AM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 35
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
The Tamron 17-50/2.8 (non-is) is a fine lens, and an especially fine lens for the money.

I will say that it's capable of things that the Canon 17-85 is not, but the reverse is also true. The Canon 15-85 would be a good replacement for the 17-85, but the Tamron 17-50/2.8 would be more of a suppliment.
I was hoping to hear some positive feedback cause this lens is very affordable so i would like to give it a shot. In comparison, sigma 17-50 OS and canon 15-85 are double the price, while canon 17-55 is almost triple the price here in Norway.
sasaboss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2012, 2:36 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sasaboss View Post
Ok maybe i got it all wrong now, but i figured that canon 17-40L is a full frame lens therefore offering a different range on aps-c. Opposed to tamron which is just a crop sensor lens.
Focal length is the same for both lenses. The 17-40L is a bigger lens with a
larger image circle for 35mm film or a full-frame sensor. It will work fine on crop
sensor cameras. As you say, the Tamron is designed for use only with the smaller
APS-C sensor.
corkpix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2012, 3:16 PM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 35
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corkpix View Post
Focal length is the same for both lenses. The 17-40L is a bigger lens with a
larger image circle for 35mm film or a full-frame sensor. It will work fine on crop
sensor cameras. As you say, the Tamron is designed for use only with the smaller
APS-C sensor.
Right. Thanks. I got confused by reading too many reviews..
sasaboss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2012, 4:19 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sasaboss View Post
I was hoping to hear some positive feedback cause this lens is very affordable so i would like to give it a shot. In comparison, sigma 17-50 OS and canon 15-85 are double the price, while canon 17-55 is almost triple the price here in Norway.
I bought the Tamron 17-50mm based on some good advice from TCav
and others. I find it is an almost ideal general purpose zoom lens.
It gives slightly better sharpness, colour and contrast than my
Canon 18-55mm IS and Canon 18-135mm IS. Both of these lenses
have become almost redundant since I bought the Tamron.

I paid around 270 from Simply Electronics last Summer. I see
the price is around the same today.
corkpix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2012, 1:09 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
dr_spock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 879
Default

I bought the Tamron 17-50mm in 2006. It has held up well over the years. Image quality is good for a zoom lens of its price. I use it as a general walk around lens. I have the 60mm macro too.
dr_spock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2012, 11:17 AM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 35
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr_spock View Post
I bought the Tamron 17-50mm in 2006. It has held up well over the years. Image quality is good for a zoom lens of its price. I use it as a general walk around lens. I have the 60mm macro too.

Excellent. I am ordering this lens.

Thanks for the replies.
sasaboss 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 3:26 AM.