Tamron 17 50 review Model A16

 

TAMRON 17 50 REVIEW

TAMRON 17 50 REVIEW

img_39801


IMG_3310

img_65231

img_8030

img_6509

Explanation for above pictures

All of the above pictures has been made with the Tamron 17 50 (Non Vc) lens. These pictures has not come like this out of the camera, I have done some post processing on them. Just to show how far you can get with this lens. The original pictures even better, cause I need to resize them to 800 pixel. Let’s say simply if you have the budget for this lens, this is the best value lens you can get for a Canon Aps-C dsrl, (perhaps for Nikon as well). I’ve got mine used(not mint condition) for 230 Euros.

Specification:

Weight: 434g

Aperture: f2,8-32

Zoom direction: Opposite as canons.

Filter size: 67 mm

Build quality:

Feels solid but have a little plastic feeling, for me a built quality is acceptable. If it would made of metal would be much more heavy. Generally the lens is reasonably small for an f2,8 lens. Manual focus is fine, all around takes 45 degrees from one end to another. Autofocus is quick but little loud. (No problem apart from a wedding, or classical concert, etc.) If this lens would have an USM drive would add a big step to its value. Perhaps the most annoying thing of this lens is the noisy sometimes hunting, unable to locking autofocus. The weight and size is well balanced on a prosumer body like 30D,60D, etc. The manual focus ring is in front of the zoom ring, I would prefer another way, but as I am not a lens maker, I don’t know there is a reason behind it, I can live with it. The originally supplied hood or if we use manual focus and not place our hands carefully we can make shadows at the corners of the image at wide settings (17mm).

Optical quality:

Nice colors, contrast, sharpness, sharp at f2,8 apart from the corners, very sharp from f4. Not needs to think in extremes, though, the lens at f2,8 not so sharp as I would like to. Not bad, but not tack sharp. At f4 it is sharp, at f5,6 is very sharp, so sharp that an 1024 pixel image can have moire effects on a screen. At f2,8 perhaps good for a close portrait, but not for a landscape, because of corner softness. Compare to a prime some distortion seems always present, except at 24mm. Very good against flare. There is a thing called field curvative to speak of. This means that the focus plane is not straight, but curving, as a result if we make a photo of a building at f2,8 the corners can be soft because of the focus plain is not straight, and the corner can be little off focused, (see the castle at first gallery.). Not a big problem for me, I use the lens for landscape at smaller apertures. It can be good for portraits. Bokeh is better than the bokeh of the Canon 50/1,8 II for example.

Sweet spot/sharpest aperture:

f5.6:I try to use f5.6 as much as possible. According to photozone.de the lens has the best resolution at f4, but visible at f5.6 th lens is sharper.

Autofocus:

Quick but little noisy, obviously not the strongest part of the lens.

Range:

17mm wider than the canon 17 55 is.

Brightness:

constant f2,8 is quite good, compare to f5,6 at the long end of the kit lens.

Compare to:

Normal older kit lenses – The Tamron is much better
Sigma 17-50f2,8 older version , 17-70, 18-50 The Tamron is better
Canon 18-55 is lens – the Tamron is significantly better, but not in all aspect though, but visibly better sharpness, contrast, built quality, the canon has a little more resolution, but significantly less contrast, and less saturated colours, much worse against flare. The stabilisation give a little extra for the canon.
Canon 15-85 is – this is not a bad lens, optical quality perhaps similar (in the same range, not at the wide and long end of the canon), the Canon’s bigger range and usm autofocus gives a better value overall, in price/quality ration Tamron wins hands down.
Canon 17-40 the Tamron is sharper, the canon has perhaps nicer colours.
Canon 17 55 is The canon is said little better overall for 3 times price. Tamron is better at the Corners. The canon has more punch, but significantly larger and heavier as well.
Newer Tamron 17 50 Vc – the original one is sharper, the newer benefit stabilisation in low light situations.
Newer Sigma 17 50 f2,8 is – Optically the Tamron is better, especially at the corners
Canon 24 105 f4 is Optically the Tamron is better on my 30D (sharpness, colour, contrast, against flare), build quality, durability and mechanical the Canon is much better
Canon 24 70 f2.8 Optically the Tamron is better on Aps-C (sharpness, colour, contrast) build quality, durability and mechanical the Canon is much better

Recommendation:

This is a very good lens, an absolute winner in it’s price range, but perhaps not so good as the terrific, 2x times expensive canon 200 f2,8 for example (my opinion), quite sharp, contrasty, but not so ultimate quality as a very good prime (distorsion, little less contrast). I say this because I expected to be that good, but it is not really realistic to a zoom lens meets the quality of the very good prime lens. The Tamron has better resolution though, very sharp, as sharp as the sensor allows. Canon lenses has very different looking images than this Tamron. (Not negative or positive aspect, just general comment.) For an amateur photographer with a normal budget as one lens solution, if you don’t want a telephoto, or longer range perhaps this is it. Sharp, has nice contrast, beautiful colours, f2,8 brightness. Good against flare. Bargain price. Quick although noisy autofocus motor. It is small and light compare to what it is, and it is very good. An f2.8 lens ususally double in weight and little bigger in size.

Drawbacks:

Not full frame. No image stabilisation, in low light without the tripod the pictures looks lot worse than the Canon 18 55 is, caused by camera shake, f2,8 aperture not helps very much in the night, no USM drive – this lens would deserve a nice quiet quick, always locking autofocus, if you don’t have USM lenses ok, but this is the most disturbing in usage, the noise and focus hunting, built quality can be better, not let dust go in (some Canon L not better either 24-105 is for example). If somebody wants the ultimate lens, that has never going to be changed afterwards perhaps this is not that (mainly mechanical and build quality). I am still not sure in absolute measure how good is it (Beats the Canon 24 105 and 24 70 easily in terms of optical quality). Very good is for sure. Very useful range and quality for a bargain price compare to the other similar possibilities. Unfortunately not a full frame lens. Seems the lens don’t like really close distances, these pictures are not so sharp as expected.

Highly recommended.

A Five star lens from Tamron. I was little suspicious with this lens, but now I like it very much.

The pictures at below link has been made with this lens, except the first one (canon 18-55 is):
www.aboutbudapest.net/spas-in-budapest/szechenyi-spa-budapest/





See also
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 Vc review

Below pictures can help to decide. No sharpening. All pictures has been made with a Tamron 17 50 lens and canon 30D body.

Home » Tamron 17 50 review Model A16 » Tamron 17 50
IMG_2265.JPG
IMG_2265.JPG
IMG_2521.JPG
IMG_2521.JPG
IMG_2483.JPG
IMG_2483.JPG
img_5242.jpg
img_5242.jpg
img_5239.jpg
img_5239.jpg
img_5250.jpg
img_5250.jpg
img_5246.jpg
img_5246.jpg
img_5253.jpg
img_5253.jpg
img_5251.jpg
img_5251.jpg
img_5151.jpg
img_5151.jpg
img_5971.jpg
img_5971.jpg
img_6002.jpg
img_6002.jpg
IMG_5567.JPG
IMG_5567.JPG
IMG_6415.JPG
IMG_6415.JPG
f3.5_6837.JPG
f3.5_6837.JPG
IMG_6785.JPG
IMG_6785.JPG


_________________________________________________________________

Newest articles:

Best value Canon lenses

__________________________________________________________________

Equipment reviews

Equipment reviews

See the reviews in the sub-menus at the right
sidebar, not everything included in the links
below.

Canon camera comparisons

Canon Full Frame comparison table
Canon Aps-C camera comparison table

Canon camera specifications

Canon 7d detailed specification
Canon 70d detailed specification
Canon 60d detailed specification
Canon 40d detailed specification

Canon Aps-C reviews
Primes

Samyang 8mm f3.5 review
Samyang 14mm f2.8 review
Sigma 35 f1.4 review
Canon 35mm f2 review
Canon 40mm f2.8 STM review
Canon 50mm f1.4 review
Canon 50mm f1.8 II review
Canon 135mm f2 review
Canon 200mm f2.8 review
Canon 300mm f4 is review
Canon 400mm f5.6 review

Zooms

Sigma 10 20mm review
Tokina 11 16mm review
Canon 15 85 review
Canon 15 85 vs Canon 24 105
Sigma 18-35 f1.8 review
Canon 24 70 f2.8 L review
Canon 24 105 review
Canon 70 200 f4 review
Canon 70 200 f2.8 review
Soligor 100 400/4.5-6.3 review

Teleconverters

Kenko 1.4 dgx review
Kenko Pro300 1.4 dgx review
Canon 2x MkII review
Soligor 2x converter review
Kenko 3x converter review

Fatbirders Top 1000 Birding Websites

New, coming products

Samyang 10mm f2.8 ED AS NCS CS
Tamron 150 600 f5-6.3-Di Vc USD tele
Sigma 24 105 f4 dg os hsm a

Latest reviews/news/articles:

Tamron 150 600 f5-6.3-Di Vc USD tele
Milc vs Dsrl
Canon 15 85 vs Canon 24 105
Canon 24 105 review update
Sigma 18-35 f1.8 review
Sigma 35 f1.4 review

Nikon camera comparisons

Nikon Full Frame comparison table
Nikon Aps-C comparison table

Nikon camera specifications

Nikon d7100 detailed specification
Nikon d7000 detailed specification
Nikon d5100 detailed specification

Nikon Aps-C lens reviews

Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 review
Nikon 35 f1.8 review
Nikon 18 105 review
Nikon 16 85mm review
Nikon 18 55mm review
Nikon 17 55mm f2.8 review
Nikon 16 85 vs 18 105
Nikon 105mm Vr micro review
Nikon 70-210mm f/4-5.6 AF review
Nikon 70-200mm f/4 Vr
Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 Vr
Sigma 170-500mm f/5-6.3 review

 Posted by at 6:04 pm