Tamron 17-50 for Canon - Reviews, Pros, Cons

[Daoust]

First of all, I *did* try a search to find info on this lens, but every time I've used the search option, it's always returned zero results. This time was no different.

Now, on to the question. I'm thinking of replacing my currently broken kit lens on my Xsi (450D) with a Tamron 17-50. There are two kinds of this lens, one with the image stabilization, and one without. I've read elsewhere that the IS version of the lens is actually softer and not as good. So at this point I'm planning on getting the non-IS version.

I would like to hear from some of you who have this lens and what you think of it. I'm looking for a kit lens replacement, and this lens fits perfectly in my price range, since I don't have the $$ to move up a step and get the 17-55, which I know is better.

[ceremus]

Everything I've read indicates if you don't have the bones for the Canon 17-55 and you can live without a stabilizer, the Tamron 17-50 is a perfectly viable alternative, and a very good value.

It tests about as sharp as the Canon, which is very good indeed. And I heard the same reports about the VC version, a bit softer than the non-VC lens. Acceptable enough for some folks probably, but if I had to have stabilizer I'd probably wait and save up for the Canon.

[Joshwells]

I was looking at the 17-50 recently and was recommended a similar lens from Sigma Amazon.com: Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM FLD Large Aperture Standard Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital DSLR Camera: Camera & Photo
From what I've heard it has similar to better sharpness than the Tamron and includes OS.
Only problem is it costs a bit more.

[Gaurav Prabhu]

Even I had the same query. But I don't think one should have a issue in this focal range. Even the 24-70 f/2.8 does not have IS if I'm right.

[RichardTaylor]

I own the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 (non IS).
It is an OK lens in good light.
In very low light, it will have a lot of trouble auto focussing (making it next to useless in some situations), where better lenses don't.

[Elmo]

I have the non-is version and could not be better pleased. Over the past 4 years or so it has been used for 90 percent of my images shot with my 40D and it has never let me down.

I say go for it.

[photog1107]

I concur. I have loved this lens and almost never been disappointed with results--even wide open.

[Daoust]

Thanks for the feedback, peeps.

I had heard the Sigma was not as good a lens, or that it was not better enough to merit the extra cost, one or the other.

I know that this lens has limitations; the price of it alone is enough of an indicator that it's not a top of the line lens. But I'm looking for a kit lens replacement that won't cost me $1000, and the Tamron 17-50 is the lens that keeps being brought up time and time again.

[Gaurav Prabhu]

Just go ahead & get it. Its worth it. Learn hand-holding techniques & you're good to go without the IS.

[scootermcq]

Originally Posted by RichardTaylor

I own the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 (non IS).
It is an OK lens in good light.
In very low light, it will have a lot of trouble auto focussing (making it next to useless in some situations), where better lenses don't.

+1

Seems strange that a 2.8 lens hunts and the focus is off even when it locks in low light. If you have a focusing grid on your speedlight, it really helps, but I have better luck locking with smaller aperture lenses in darker situations.