Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 Di-II LD HELP!

[andrewq]

I have a Rebel XTI (cropped body) and have been shooting live shows for a while with good results and gotten some gigs out of it. I have always wanted a fast zoom and initially was looking at the 24-70mm 2.8 L as I was told that it was all you could ever ask for as a music photog. Trust me, I understand the reasoning behind this and know it to be a fantastic lens, incredible glass etc. I've done my research.

A couple weeks ago I shot The Mother Hips in Santa Cruz and brought my dad's 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 IS along and got a couple decent shots out of it. I really brought it along to see what the wide angle could do for me and I loved the fact that I was in a crowded room with a small stage and could get everything in at the wide end. So I started to look at the Canon EF 17-55mm 2.8 USM and the price tag just freaks me out. By the reviews it sounds like a great lens and I love the Canon USM motor. I figured I'd start saving money.

Is this too good to be true? Yesterday I found the Tamron AF17-50mm F/2.8 Di-II LD Aspherical and spent most of my day reading reviews. I don't have a lot of money to throw around so I research this stuff very carefully. The appeal is that this lens is a third the price of the Canon equivalent! The vast majority of reviews I read say this is a damn fine lens and comparable to L glass and easily comparable, if not better, to the canon equivalent. I found it suspect at first but so many reviews (pro and amateur) just can't be wrong right?

Has anyone here shot with one? More specifically, has anyone shot live music with it? My only hold back right now is that the AF might hunt in low light but then I thought about the venues I consistently shoot in and the worst is the Cafe du Nord in SF and I borrowed a 24-70 2.8 L there and it even hunted. This plus a 6 year warrantee with reputed good customer service and I am seriously thinking about this.

Has anyone used one? Feed back? I am specifically looking for pro/semi-pro thoughts on this lens. I understand that this lens will not have Canon build quality. I take care of my gear so i'm not worried about that. It's all about performance. Please help.

[OsmosisStudios]

I'd be more tempted to get a wider-angle prime (say a 20?) and shoot with primes. Youve already got a 50 and an 85. Why not?

[beatles2]

I bought that lens a few months ago, and I love it. I used it at a car show last weekend, I have some of the shots on flickr. the only thing is the auto focus is noisy.

[Elmo]

I use one regularly on a 40D. It has never failed me yet. It is not as well made as an L but isdefinately serviceable. Several of the stringers for the local papers use this lens with great results. Comparing the Tanny to the L, I can usually tell the digerence in the captures. Neither seems better than the other only different. Specifically color and contrast, they best overall is based on the subject matter. But people in the know think more highly of you if you have a "grip" and a "Red Stripe."

[andrewq]

Cool responses so far and they are putting me closer to pulling the trigger on the tammy.

I don't want to get another prime because this will be specifically for live music photography and I need the zoom capability and am just kind of over changing out lenses when I need reach or a wider angle. That is a serious pain in a crowded room. If I get this thing the 85mm will still come along as the results for my show shots are consistently awesome. The 50mm, oddly enough, is a dog in low light (lots of hunting at least with my copy) so that will be for portraits and such. I want a good fast zoom and with the crop factor I imagine I will get wide enough but still have the reach I'm looking for in some of the smaller rooms.

As for the L glass. I covet those lenses as much as anyone (what is it about that red line?) but the reviews for this tamron have been so overwhelmingly positive (85-95 percent love this lens) it is making me wonder why I need to scrimp and save (and some other necessary purchase inevitibly comes up where I end up having to spend the money) when I might just get what I'm lookng for now?

I think I'm going to rent the tamron first and see where things go from there.

Thanks again for the replies and please keep them coming, the more feedback the better.

[Elmo]

All L glass has a thin red line (band) around the end of outward end of the lens.

Tammy might be better it has Gold

[voltech]

I brought the VC version recently. Took some great photo and was pretty sharp. I agree with the poster above that the focus is a bit noisy. But if noise dosen't borther you, I think its a great lens for the bucks.

[wal]

Hi andrew..
its been few month now since the last post.... so i'm guessing you been using the tamron right.? since I am having this same question.. i just want to know how is the tamron lens doing.? should i get one for my self.? my kit 18-55mm got damaged.

[zona5101]

Originally Posted by Elmo

All L glass has a thin red line (band) around the end of outward end of the lens.

Tammy might be better it has Gold

elmo, you are so wryly funny!


If Nigel Tufnel was a photographer....

Nigel Tufnel: The lens all have gold bands. Look, right across the board, gold, gold, gold, and …
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And other lenses have...?
Nigel Tufnel: Red. Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's better? Is it any sharper?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's gold, isn't it? It's not red. You see, most blokes, you know, will be shooting with a red striped lens. Your lens is red here, all the way round you're got a red lens on your camera. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don't know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put on a gold lens?.
Nigel Tufnel: Gold. Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just paint the red ones gold?
Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These are gold.

[andrewq]

I just found this thread that I started a while back. I wanted to revisit it. I bought the Tamron after reading stunning reviews. I even went without the VC (vibration control) version because I thought, "Hell, the 24-70 F2.8 L doesn't have IS" and I know the quality of those images in low light.

Anyway, I took the jump and I've been shooting with this lens now for a month and a half. So far I LOVE THIS FREAKING LENS! I have now shot a bunch of work that will be album art for a band I shot back in June (they were so stoked with the images) and then took it and shot a music festival I frequent annually. I pulled some of my very best images of the festival with this lens.

Couple things I've noticed: Fast ISO seems to bring the grain with this lens more than others and the grain can be kind of interesting. You'll see what I mean in a minute. But, that said, I still dig it becuase I shoot shows primarily in B+W and dig the grainy look. One of the big drawbacks for most people on this lens has been the AF speed/noise. Like I said I shoot a lot of music in lowlight and I'm totally fine with the AF speed. It locks, doesn't "hunt" very much at all.

What else? I love the wide of the 17mm and, regrettably, even though I haven't gotten up in the mountains much yet this summer (soon though!) I have been stoked with my landscapes. The sharpness and IQ are rad.

Here are some links to shots I've gotten with this lens recently. The first will show the weird noise I've noticed at higher iso's which, if there is any drawback to this lens I guess this is it. Any ideas on how to combat this or where it might be coming from?

See the vertical lines? Images - Temp. Gallery: HSMF 2010 - tim and greg 1.jpg

Images - Temp. Gallery: HSMF 2010 - paul.jpg

This was a particularly hard shot with totally weird light and it is a credit to this lens that I got it. So pleased: Images - Temp. Gallery: HSMF 2010 - rock.jpg

Images - Temp. Gallery: HSMF 2010 - timmer.jpg

And a couple color shots:

Images - Temp. Gallery: HSMF 2010 - Nathan Moore: Surprise Me Late Night

Images - Temp. Gallery: HSMF 2010 - Friedman In Color

Interested to hear what you all think of the image quality here. Basically wanted to post this because I want others to know that there are ways to get out there and get lenses without spending over a thousand dollars. That said, my sites are now set on a 70-200mm f/2.8 L!

Best,
Andrew