Your experience with Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 non VC?

[zhulearntophoto]

Afflicted with G.A.S and consider purchasing a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 non VC. I have gone through a few reviews and they are fairly positive. I would like to get a Nikon 17-55mm f2.8, but the price is well beyond my reach. The Tamron seems a good alternative. If you own this lens, I will be really grateful for your feedback: pros and cons?

Another non-related question: what is your way dealing with high-contrast scenes, like sunrise when there are several stops difference between the foreground and the sky?

I know shooting raw will help to retain details. Hopefully I will get a Nikon D7000 soon and this camera has exposure bracketing function. Will this help?

I guess the best way is to use a GND filter. Cokin GND filters are comparatively cheap, but it seems they have bad colour cast. I have not bought any and I am thinking of buying one or two GND filters. Will they help? What brand do you recommend for a reasonable price?

Thanks in advance. Your knowledge and thoughts are highly appreciated.

[JM Tran]

I used to own one, its a good value for money lens for what you are paying for it. Ok sharpness at f2.8 in the centre, but a lot better at f4 and beyond from corner to corner, the first generation 17-50 was quite noisy as it is a screw driven lens for focusing - I didnt find it a factor but for those who are used to high quality lenses it might put them off.

Its small and light and very good for travel - the cheap price also make it hurt a lot less if you were to damage or lose it, instead of an L or Nikkor lens.

If you need slightly longer reach but dont mind losing the constant f2.8 the Sigma 17-70 is a good performer too, the latest version has OS.

[zhulearntophoto]

Thank you, JM Tran. That helps a lot.

[reaction]

I used to own one, but I got rid of it.
Found the AF to be too inaccurate. It's screw motor, so quite loud. The tolerance was too great.

When sharp, it was really sharp. But in tests on a tripod, if you start from inf. and from 0m, then the AF would stop at slightly differing locations.

In the end I would need to take 5-6pics of a scene to ensure I had a good shot (due to combination of blinking + AF miss)
Now I only need 2-3 to account for blinking.

[Viper]

I still have this fine lens, my copy must be very good as i have heard a few people complain regarding sharpness wide open. I can honestly say my one performs more than adequate. I took this lens with me to Europe last year and it was bolted on my D300 for most of the time. Great street photography lens also. Performed very well in low light too.
I take the above mentioned combo with me as a backup on many jobs.

[AmPhot]

I bought mine second hand and love it, it's become my prime general purpose lens (walkaround, portrait etc). I find the images very sharp and have no complaints about it at all. I say go for it. :th3:

[arthurking83]

One of my best lenses too.
Had mine for a while now, and used to use it quite a lot, but as with many things, I tended to use it less and less, but not because of any intrinsic bad quality, more so because I've found myself shooting at the wider end with a wider lens, or at the longer end with a slightly longer lens.

If I go to a party and need a single lens for most purposes, this is it :th3:

I've never experienced the misfocusing as previously mentioned here, but I get misfocusing with the T 28-75/2.8(which is my preferred lens).

I seem to have a preference for really wide perspective images, and what's happened over the years is that when I used to use the 17-50 more, it was due to the availability of the f/2.8 aperture which helps to keep ISO as low as possible in darker scenes. The D300 subsequently increased ISO by at least 2 .. maybe 4, stops over my previous camera(D70) and hence the wider angled perspective became more important, even if that meant a smaller aperture and higher ISO.

Focus noise is louder than an ultrasonic driven lens for sure, but to call the focusing noise(of the screw driven lens) loud is a bit of a stretch of the imagination!

As for filters Cokins are great value for money to a beginner, or non committal initial foray into such accessories.
They are relatively cheap enough so that when you've decided that this is the avenue for you(using filters instead of software methods), that you can simply dump it and switch to a better higher quality system.

Don't overly invest in it, just get enough of the basics to cover most of your needs use it as frequently as you can, get a feel for it all, if it's the workflow you prefer to use then save as much money as you can initially, and look into a better system with a longer term payback factor.
I should have dumped my Cokin system years ago and gone with some filters of higher quality, but the Cokins still get me a quality that is (what I deem to be) of an acceptable level anyhow.

One day soon when I get back into it, I'll update all of mine.

As for the colour cast, it's an issue that is basically not overly important. Easily corrected both with the use of the right filters at the right time for a given scene and also easily corrected in PP.
The real colour cast issues come when you stack various grad filters heavily.. but then again even the higher end filters will do this too.

[reaction]

I'll also add that the diff in inf & 0m AF I think was only in indoor situations, maybe only when it was dark.

[zhulearntophoto]

I can not simply thank you enough for your input here, everyone. I am so glad that I joined AP and it is a wonderful online community with generosity. A special thank you to arthurking83 for your advice on GND filters. I think you are right and I may start with Cokin GND filters for learning purpose. After I have a good feel it, then I can assess my needs and decide whether I need to invest in more expensive tools.

[mikew09]

I have had mine for about 2.5 yrs now and love it - good copy for sure. It is a very sharp lens and mine is very consistent. I find it exceptional wide open to around f16, I do find it can get very soft out of centre in the f18 + area. An excellent lens wide open and very good across the full focal range. Though not an L series lens it is a very versatile and worthy lens for the price. Some sample pics below:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6021/5979651544_965d1d325e_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6193/6072355290_4210661b41_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6144/6025541562_33e101930f_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6149/5956135205_381420a1c2_b.jpg

[KeeFy]

It was my very first lens and it's a stellar lens for the price. Mine was a sharp copy as well. I upgraded to a 17-55 f2.8 IS. Comparing it side by side, it matches the canon version for center sharpness and contrast. Downsides to it was the lack of IS and USM, but what you do expect for 1/3 the price of the canon version? AF locking is good just a little noisy and slightly slower vs the Canon version. Also barrel distortion is a little more pronounced but nothing that can't be easily rectified via PP. It has a weight and size advantage. Bokeh is visually pleasing as well!

I've recommended this lens to plenty of people and no one has been disappointed so far!

[zhulearntophoto]

Thanks for sharing, Mike and KeeFy. It helps a lot.

[Tjfrnds]

I'm with most here, I've had this lens since Nov last year and love it. Have found no issues with sharpness and think it's great value for money.