Mini review: Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC

[maccaroneski]

Well I thought I would try my hand at a little lens review, and that would be one for my new baby, affectionately known as the SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II VC LD Aspherical (IF). It replaces its almost identically identically named precursor, which lacks two important letters, “VC”. And of course I have the Nikon mount version. I picked it up for $750 at ECS (www.cameras.net.au) in person (i.e. no pastage) and it is a local version with Australian warranty.

Unfortunately I don't have a lot to compare it to – only the Nikon 18-55 3.5-5.6 kit lens. In comparison to that, the Tamron is (a) heavier; (b) bigger (it carries a 72mm filter thread versus 52 on the kit lens); (c) a little slower to focus; and (d) a little noisier.

BUT it's significantly faster (2.8 all the way) and I think a little bit sharper. It also feels a lot better in the hand, and the build quality seems to be much better. The VC also works a treat and I'm getting keepers hand held at 1/15th.

The focus ring is quite light, but very smooth. The zoom is significantly heavier, but also silky smooth.

One little problem I have from time to time, although becoming less frequent (although at the moment about once every session of use) is that the lens' electronics seem to lock up – my D90 reports “f--” and it won't autofocus, meter, or allow me to open the shutter. Turning the camera off and back on sometimes fixes it, however, sometimes I have to give the lens a little turn back and forth (as if I were taking it off the body).

A little research (i.e. googling “D90 f--”) brings up a whole bunch of hits of what appears to be a loss of contact between the lens from the body, mostly happening with Tamron lenses, but also troubling a range of Nikon lenses. Most accounts seem to back my experience of it happening less and less as you go along and change lenses on your camera a few times.

Anyway, on to the images. All taken with a D90 at ISO 200.

The first is 40mm, 1/30th f8.

The second is 50mm, 1/60th. f.28.

And the third is at 50mm, 1/50th, f2.8

[chrisbevan4]

Thanks for doing this review, this is one of the lens I am considering buying.


my D90 reports “f--” and it won't autofocus, meter, or allow me to open the shutter.

f--- is a bit of a concern:(

Your sample images look really sharp and detailed.

Chris

[old dog]

looks good Tony. My 18-135 does the f--- thing occassionally and all I do is give it a slight wiggle back and forth and it stops. It seems to be the only lens I have that does it. Good review and your shots are nice and sharp. I have just got a s/h one with BIM but no VC. Its nice and fast but I`m still coming to terms with it`s overall performance and how to use it to its full advantage.

[ausguitarman]

Thanks Tony :th3:.

Been looking at one of these since they were first released.

[maccaroneski]

f--- is a bit of a concern

In my research, it doesn't seem to be specific to this lens, but rather a range of lenses on the D80 / 90 - as Old Dog's post attests. It was a concern to me but the compromise that I came to was to buy from a local B & M store (which only cost me about $50 more than grey importing) so if I had any issues, I could take it in there - I bought the body there too, so they can't shift the blame on to that :-)


Its nice and fast but I`m still coming to terms with it`s overall performance and how to use it to its full advantage.

That is indeed the challenge. It's funny, reading the reviews people occasionally complained about some softness wide open or mis-focussing, but I concluded "user error". When you're wide open and right up in your subject's face, DOF is just a sliver, so technique becomes quite important. A good example there is the third photo I've posted - it looks quite out of focus, however I think I managed to nail the focus point on the right eye, which is razor sharp, even at 100%.


Your sample images look really sharp and detailed.

Happy to email some high-res non-compressed shots which are extremely impressive detail wise (still crap shots though) - just PM me.

[mongo]

Mongo does not think comparing that lens to a 18-55 Nikkor (costing $174) is a relevant comparison. Maybe comparing it to a 17-55 f2.8 Nikkor (albeit at twice the price $1540)) is more apples with apples; at least as far as specs go and forgetting price for the moment for which there are no directly comparable lenses except other 3rd party lenses.

Having said that, Mongo does not own a 17-55 f2.8 and could in no way say how it would compare performance wise. Certainly, one would expect the f2.8 Tamron to outperform the lesser speced and lesser priced Nikkor 18-55.

It is however, useful and appreciated that your findings have been made available – it all helps.

[Paul G]

I'm another who is considering this lense at present but even at $750 it is out of my range so I'm looking second hand. I've read a lot of mixed reviews, some saying that is actually soft at f2.8 and you have to reduce the aperture somewhat for the best results. Seems a bit pointless having a 2.8 and not being able to utilise it's full potential:confused013 Your third pic seems to have good detail though Tony.

[old dog]

Paul...there is one coming up s/h on ebay today...the VC model.

[rogklee]

point is most lenses are a little softer at their lowest aperture (2.8 or 1.8 or 1.4 depending on the lens) and all become sharper as you raise the f stop (to a certain point).

I rekon the Tammy looks pretty good at 2.8, mine does anyway, however I don't have the VC version, I only convinced maccaroneski to buy it and hence give myself lens lust and also a large amount of jealousy.

[Paul G]

Paul...there is one coming up s/h on ebay today...the VC model.

Cheers O.D.
I was watching that one but missed the end of the auction. Just checked and it didn't get one bid at a starting price of $550 and it was only two months old?
I see you've got the previous version for sale yourself. How much difference or loss would you expect from the VC to the non-VC do you think? My budget doesn't even really stretch to $550 at present and like you the Nikon is the one I would like to get eventually.

[maccaroneski]

point is most lenses are a little softer at their lowest aperture (2.8 or 1.8 or 1.4 depending on the lens) and all become sharper as you raise the f stop (to a certain point).

I rekon the Tammy looks pretty good at 2.8, mine does anyway, however I don't have the VC version, I only convinced maccaroneski to buy it and hence give myself lens lust and also a large amount of jealousy.

Agreed. I don't have any problem with the image quality at 2.8 - the difference as you open it up is no more than my Nikkor 35mm 1.8.

There's 2 things about faster lenses, well at least that I have read, and to some extent experienced:

As Rogklee points out, any lens would appear to get softer at maximum aperture. At least with this lens you get that maximum sharpness at f4 rather than say with the kit lens at f7.

Secondly I think that as this lens is generally a first excursion into a fast zoom for the hobbyist / beginner, there is something of a learning curve involved in shooting at f2.8 when you haven't had that option before, especially with regard to the thin DOF at closeish working distances.

I too considered the more expensive Nikkor lens, but thought I'd go with this one and see how far I get with it. If I come up against any limitations (and at my level I don't think I will too soon) in a year's time if I can get $600 for it 2nd hand, then the whole experience will have only cost me $150.

[maccaroneski]

Mongo does not think comparing that lens to a 18-55 Nikkor (costing $174) is a relevant comparison...

It is however, useful and appreciated that your findings have been made available – it all helps.

It's all I had :-). Rather than really give the lens a good going over (which I don't really have the expertise to do) I was more trying to capture what it was like going from the kit lens to the Tammy - as I thought that's probably the type of user who is going to buy this lens would be doing - and the big question for me really was "what am I going to get for my money " considering that the purchase was an upgrade.

All in all I'm very happy with my value for money - I'm not so sure if that would have been the case and paid twice the price for even say 10% better performance.

A great read will be old dog's experience in that regard when he goes from the non-VC Tammy to the Nikkor - looking forward to it.

[mongo]

The purpose and helpfulness of your exercise was and remains understood and acknowledged.
"It is however, useful and appreciated that your findings have been made available – it all helps."

[Kerry]

Thanks Tony - I appreciate your review as I too am considering this lens...decisions decisions!!

[Leonski]

I too have just purchased this lens, and it this stage i"m not 100% sure on it.

Now, I'm pretty much starting again with digital, but at this stage it doesn't appear to be anywhere near as sharp as my tamron 70-200.

Focus isn't as straight forward, but that might just be me and not knowing how to set the focus up properly on the 50D.


Life's been busy, so I haven't had much of a play at this stage, but I'll post some images when I learn how.

[maccaroneski]

Thanks for doing this review, this is one of the lens I am considering buying.



f--- is a bit of a concern:(



Chris

Small update - haven't had this problem for at least a couple of weeks now, and I'm using the lens every day. Perhaps what I read was true - it just needed to be mounted and dismounted a dozen or so times.

[chrisbevan4]

I got the non VR model for $499 at JB, and I am not 100% with it !:confused013

May well be me be not using it properly!

But I have taken a few photos and closeups are not as good as my Nikon 55-200 there seems to be a lot of noise with the Tamron 17-50.:(

I will take some more photo's in different situations and see how it goes,

I did get it, to use as a walk around-portrait lens so close up comparison
is not a good/fair test of what I wanted to use it for.

[maccaroneski]

Chris,

I did feel the same way with regard to my 55-200... I think that there is something of a learning curve though, especially with the smaller DOF at say f2.8 on a closeup.

Maybe post some images of the noise you're referring to?

[milspec]

looks good Tony. My 18-135 does the f--- thing occassionally and all I do is give it a slight wiggle back and forth and it stops. It seems to be the only lens I have that does it. Good review and your shots are nice and sharp. I have just got a s/h one with BIM but no VC. Its nice and fast but I`m still coming to terms with it`s overall performance and how to use it to its full advantage.

Sounds like the contacts are a bit dirty. Maybe try cleaning them with alcohol?

[chrisbevan4]

Chris,

I did feel the same way with regard to my 55-200... I think that there is something of a learning curve though, especially with the smaller DOF at say f2.8 on a closeup.

Maybe post some images of the noise you're referring to?

I have taken a few images, but I think I'll do a fair and equal test
and will use tripod and remote a try to get the best I can from both lens of the same thing to see for sure. May not get time until the weekend.

[rogklee]

hard to compare two different lenses at different focal lengths as well!!

[chrisbevan4]

hard to compare two different lenses at different focal lengths as well!!

Very true! 50 vs 55. Will see how I go.

Hopefully I may learn how to get the best out the Tamron 17-50

[Gluggy]

Just picked up a second hand Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (with focus motor but no VC). I'm excited to give it a work out but first impressions are good. Picture quality, as Tony said, leaves the Nikon kit zoom for dead (I know, its not apples with apples) but I see this as a definate upgrade for me.

The focus motor seems a little harsh and is slower than some of the high end Nikkor lenses I've had the pleasure to try out, but for the price I can not grumble. As soon as I've got a few daylight shots with it I'll stick them up and I might even stick up the same test shot from my now redundant Nikon kit lens as a comparison.

[chrisbevan4]

I have taken a few images, but I think I'll do a fair and equal test
and will use tripod and remote a try to get the best I can from both lens of the same thing to see for sure. May not get time until the weekend.

I wasn't very successful, with closeups with tamron 17-50 non VC!

But I have found it very good as a walk around lens, and have taken some good photos

[Palomine]

I was semi-talked into this lens (non VC version) by my local shop for an upcoming wedding. Could not be happier. Sharp as can be. Noisy AF but I don't think it is slow. I think the noise just makes it sound slow, if that makes any sense.

Great lens IMO.

BTW I begged the bride and groom to get a professional photographer :o

[sky]

I have the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and it is a great lens, very sharp. So I would think this will be great.

[michael_sa]

I have the non VC (Vibration Compensation) version and love it.
I find it very sharp & it produces great bokeh.

A few people have questioned the sharpness at F2.8
Here are two (full res) jpgs I just shot, straight from camera*
(* Nikon D200: Sat +, Sharp +, Tone + (it's 'Custom Bank D' - my no processing/dead head mode))
Both taken bouncing the SB600 at 50mm F2.8 (ISO100, 1/60)
DSC_3509.JPG 3872x2592 3.75MB focus: eye (http://www.users.on.net/~michael.jules/stuff/DSC_3509.JPG)
DSC_3510.JPG 3872x2592 3.09MB focus: nose (http://www.users.on.net/~michael.jules/stuff/DSC_3510.JPG)
There are more (straight from camera) full res shots here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelbuddle/sets/72157607852787867/) taken with a Fuji S5 Pro using that same lens.
It may be a little short at the top end (50mm) but I'm very happy with it.

Michael

[rwg717]

A really informative little review....well done, I like the sample images too, you seem to be getting right inside the eye of the cat, I had no idea there was so much detail in there:)
Richard

[abitfishy]

Although I'm not much of a tog, may I also add I can get bright, sharp pics straight from the camera, something I've never been able to do with 'kit' lenses. And at $300 (or $350, can't remember) for the original non VC model second hand, great value.

[beaco]

You have some great pics there. I'm thinking about a 550d with this lens rather than the kit lens. Given the kit lens is only $80 or so - is it worth getting both?

[maccaroneski]

Beaco if the kit lens is the same focal length, I wouldn't bother. Spend that 80 bucks on a good polariser.

A tip:the Tamron has a 72mm filter thread. Get yourself a 77mm filter and step down ring: that way, if you ever get pro glass with a 77mm filter thread, you'll be good to go. I made this mistake and on a later purchase, my current filter doesn't fit.

[beaco]

I decided to forget about the kit lens. Ordered this Tamron lens instead along with a Marumi 72mm DHG CPL filter. I guess if I get a pro lens I'l just need a new filter. Filter was only about $60 anyway so not too much of an issue.

Looking forward to testing out this setup when it arrives.

[mikew09]

Purchased the non-VC copyof this lens about 6 months ago and I am very happy with it - a very sharp and useful lens. Spends about 50% of the time on my camera. Very happy with it. Bought it just before the VC was released in au and was cheap at the time.
Did read a review tht said the VC was a tad off as sharp as the non VC but that was oly one review. Have not missed the VC in use but I would think it would only improve this great lens.

[mikew09]

I decided to forget about the kit lens. Ordered this Tamron lens instead along with a Marumi 72mm DHG CPL filter. I guess if I get a pro lens I'l just need a new filter. Filter was only about $60 anyway so not too much of an issue.

Looking forward to testing out this setup when it arrives.

Beaco, just be mindful of the impact of a cheap filter. I gave filters away after some ordinary experiences with cheaper UV filters and now choose to always use the hood on my lens regardless - I do have a CP filter but I paid an embarrasing fee for it and it certainly wasn't on the cheap end of the market. I have since done a sacraficial destroying of my evil, evil cheap filters (not really - I gave them to a fellow who bought my kit lens). So, test with and without so as to ensure the filter is not giving a false impression of the quality of the lens as I can assure, this is a very sharp lens.

I think you will enjoy this lens.

[beaco]

The CPL filter in question seemed to get good reviews so I'm hoping it's ok.

Camera has arrived so I know what I'll be doing on the weekend. Yay!

[stillie]

Nice review maccaroneski.

I bought one of these today as a "Street Lens" to go with a 50D also bought today to replace the Oly E-30 I was disappointed with. So far with a limited number of shots due to dull late afternoon light I am very pleased. Have added a general test shot (HDR) taken @ ISO 200, 17mm, f/5.59. Black in top RH corner is part of verandah. This lens has great potential.

[beaco]

grrr. Rainy and busy weekend meant not much photo taking. Camera and lens seem excellent so far though.

[PerfectPicture]

Hi,

thanks for the review and pictures , very nicely done.

l'm also considering this lens "Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di-II VC LD Aspherical (IF) Lenses " for my a wedding in 5 weeks time.

Do you or others have any test pictures at the 17mm side as well? as would be good to see that as well.
is this lens good for wedding photography and in the church, indoors, etc as well?
also fast enough to capture Great portraits shots with great Bohek as well?

was looking at this one or the sigma one or even the canon 17-40L f4 (but 1 stop difference). not sure, decisions .. decisions!? :) lol

thanks

Robert

[Flash Hit]

Fantastic Lens on my 7D. Nice and sharp. I dropped the first one I bought (3 weeks old!) so I had to buy a second ($553 with a free UV 72mm filter) delivered to my door. It was the only thing I did not have on the list of extras. I have since sacked my insurance company (QBE) because they refused the claim and my new insurance policy does not require any list! Back to the lens, great for just about any situation where the bigger zooms are not required.

[PerfectPicture]

Fantastic Lens on my 7D. Nice and sharp. I dropped the first one I bought (3 weeks old!) so I had to buy a second ($553 with a free UV 72mm filter) delivered to my door. It was the only thing I did not have on the list of extras. I have since sacked my insurance company (QBE) because they refused the claim and my new insurance policy does not require any list! Back to the lens, great for just about any situation where the bigger zooms are not required.

Thanks Greg for your response! Shame you dropped the first one , and being an accident the insurance company should honour your claim!? thats harsh mate! Tell them that's Un-Australian! :) haha

Can you please advise Where did you pick up this lens up for?
Saw on DWI for $474 > HERE (http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/store/product.asp?idProduct=2416)

l'm looking at shooting my cousins Wedding in 5 weeks time, and would like a Great Portrait and low light shooting lens that compliments my current equipment list in sig.

by the way, what insurance company do you have now and whats the claim called?
as never really thought about it .. and l have over $10,000 dollars (easily) of Photographic gear as well. IS it expensive? l should get it as well ;) hmmmm...

thanks mate.

[achee]

I have the non VC (Vibration Compensation) version and love it.
I find it very sharp & it produces great bokeh.

A few people have questioned the sharpness at F2.8
Here are two (full res) jpgs I just shot, straight from camera*
(* Nikon D200: Sat +, Sharp +, Tone + (it's 'Custom Bank D' - my no processing/dead head mode))
Both taken bouncing the SB600 at 50mm F2.8 (ISO100, 1/60)
DSC_3509.JPG 3872x2592 3.75MB focus: eye (http://www.users.on.net/~michael.jules/stuff/DSC_3509.JPG)
DSC_3510.JPG 3872x2592 3.09MB focus: nose (http://www.users.on.net/~michael.jules/stuff/DSC_3510.JPG)
There are more (straight from camera) full res shots here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelbuddle/sets/72157607852787867/) taken with a Fuji S5 Pro using that same lens.
It may be a little short at the top end (50mm) but I'm very happy with it.

Michael

I have that lens and I'm trying hard to get images that sharp! For now, I'm far far from it. I'll keep working on it...

[Flash Hit]

Currently available from DC-Trade-UK through e-bay at:
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Tamron-17-50mm-F-2-8-XR-Di-II-VC-LD-Asp-IF-fr-Canon-UV-/130412565980
the price includes a free UV filter (a good way to protect the lens) and delivery. Also no credit card charges by paying through PayPal.

DWI are OK but extras add up from the original advertised price.
My delivery was 3 days.

[s13eisbaer]

I've read too many conflicting reports about these lenses, so I decided to compare the two side by side. I think I'll be ordering the non-VC version myself. For $399 it's a steal!

Full comparison including original high-res examples are available here (http://bit.ly/dnrkQB).