Rumors > Lenses

Looking for reviews of the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8

(1/3) > >>

lopicma:
I realize there are two versions of this lens (with and without image stabilization),  so thoughts on either would be appreciated.  To begin with, are Tamron lenses any good?  I see they are much less expensive that Canon or Nikon, or even Sigma ...  That usually does not bode well.

Thanks,
Mark L.

wickidwombat:
some people like them, my personal experience and opinion is that they are rubbish and a total waste of money.
if you buy one new be prepared for it to have very little resale.

PictoPete:
Everywhere on the web notes that the NON-VC version is noticeably better in image quality.

TTMartin:
The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 has low, noisy focus that hunts in low light  :P
And its pictures just look dead (lack vibrance) compared to my Canon and Sigma lenses.

I have one I'll sell you if you want.

I bought a Sigma 17-50 OS and am very happy with it.

Mt Spokane Photography:
Tamron lenses are good for the price.  Like any other, they have good ones and poor ones.  They have seldom had autofocus compatibility with Canon, while sigma has had them big time.
 
Resale value for their lenses is going to take a hit, OEM lenses generally bring a lot more when you go to sell them.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page