For those of you who have wondered about buying the new Tamron 17-50 2.8 here is some information you may be interested in. I received my copy of the 17-50 from B&H last Thursday. I already own a 17-40L and was thinking this lens would make a good replacement as well as an upgrade based on the facts that it was a 2.8 across the board and with a 10MM longer reach although, admittedly not Canon L build quality it appears to be good. I liked that it is a lot smaller but was also influenced by the excellent write up on PZ where it attained some of the highest scores yet, in resolution anyway. Since I received the lens I have taken about 100 shots with it and the 17-40L comparing the results side by side. After about 25 comparisons I was ready to sell the 17-40L and keep the Tamron thinking it appeared sharper in many of the shots but I have to admit it was difficult to judge even at wide open apertures and 200% viewing. I was also influenced by the size advantage of the Tamron, this lens is darn right small and feels great on the camera. The build quality is also as good as I have seen from Tamron, the barrel when extended is tight and the zoom is nice and smooth. It is also made in Japan.
I had all but made my final decision to keep the Tamron but decided before putting the 17-40 on the block, I would go to a local attraction and test it under field conditions against the 17-40L. I shot 28 raw shots on my 20D under good lighting conditions. My testing consisted of shots that I would typically take at apertures I would typically use. I did not try to find the weak points in the lens, just pictures that I would typically take. I got home and started looking at them and picked two of the same scene to make 8 X 10’s from, one each Tamron and Canon. I processed the raw files exactly the same and printed both shots on a Canon i9100 printer. The prints were compared, to my surprise I was seeing detail in the Canon prints that were soft and not delineated by the Tamron. Fine foliage on a tree were very clearly delineated by the 17-40L and not so by the Tamron. If I didn’t follow through with the final test, I would have kept the Tamron based on the screen on my PC. Printing made a difference and I am returning the Tamron. I would say this lens is a step up from the 17-85 but not in it with the 17-40. My .02
I ended up keeping the Tamron. In my it was the real world tests where the Tamron seemed do slightly better actually. Focus is SO key with these wide angles though, a little bit farther back or closer in and the corners and center detail can change quite noticeably. Very hard to compare. Finally, I got sick of it, maybe the L is slightly shaper in center in the middle range, but whatever, real world shots the Tamron seemed slightly better at 17mm, and it has f/2.8 and 50mm is definitely just enough to make it walk-around, 40mm was not quite. since I had such a hard time deciding, after each test I was ready to sell the other lens, I figured why not go for what gives the f/2.8 and 50mm options, combined with nice, compact package. maybe I let the size, f/2.8 and 50mm influence me, maybe not.
skibum5 wrote:
I ended up keeping the Tamron. In my it was the real world tests where the Tamron seemed do slightly better actually. Focus is SO key with these wide angles though, a little bit farther back or closer in and the corners and center detail can change quite noticeably. Very hard to compare. Finally, I got sick of it, maybe the L is slightly shaper in center in the middle range, but whatever, real world shots the Tamron seemed slightly better at 17mm, and it has f/2.8 and 50mm is definitely just enough to make it walk-around, 40mm was not quite. since I had such a hard time deciding, after each test I was ready to sell the other lens, I figured why not go for what gives the f/2.8 and 50mm options, combined with nice, compact package. maybe I let the size, f/2.8 and 50mm influence me, maybe not. ...Show more →
I was the same way, it was truly a tough call. Besides that, I liked the tamron so much. However, in my case, the Canon is putting down the better image, maybe it's just my copy. And your 100% correct, it doesn't take much to change things. Good luck with your Tamron.
For those who have one, how loud is the focus on yours?
I tried one in a local shop a few days ago, and was surprised at how noisy it was. It was also louder than a Sigma 17-70 I tested as well. Both the Sigma and Tamron were pretty fast, but the Tamron's noise level was more than I expected.
Focal length was 17MM @ F8 for the shots I used to make the comparison prints. It is possible that field curvature was the problem because the edges is where the Tamron was not quite as good. These lenses are very close in performance, I would buy the Tamron again based on what I seen but will not keep it based on what I have. I was pleased with the build quality as well.
Mark, for me, the focusing noise was very acceptable and quick.
Focal length was 17MM @ F8 for the shots I used to make the comparison prints. It is possible that field curvature was the problem because the edges is where the Tamron was not quite as good. These lenses are very close in performance, I would buy the Tamron again based on what I seen but will not keep it based on what I have. I was pleased with the build quality as well.
Mark, for me, the focusing noise was very acceptable and quick.
Gene
I found that tamron tended to reach peak detail a bit before f/8, more like f/5-f/6.3 while the 17-40L tended to peak more like f/7.1-f/9. with the tamron peaking perhaps earlier at wider and the L peaking perhaps later at wider.
assuming my impression is valid.
>>I found that tamron tended to reach peak detail a bit before f/8, more like f/5-f/6.3 while the 17-40L tended to peak more like f/7.1-f/9. with the tamron peaking perhaps earlier at wider and the L peaking perhaps later at wider.
assuming my impression is valid.<<
Well, that's another factor. I just shot pictures somewhat the way I would normally do it. It doesn't take much to change things in favor of one or the other. I have already changed my decision to return the Tamron. I really had to stick my nose in the pictures to see any difference and the little difference I did see is offset by the terrific ergonomics of the Tamron. With theTamron mounted the camera takes on another personality, one that is not available from Canon. I'll keep both for awhile but most likely will eventually sell the 17-40.
