How much different are the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 stabilized (VC) and non-stabilized versions?

Question

I have seen these 2 lenses being suggested by many people across the site as general purpose zooms and an upgrade to the typical 18-55mm kit lenses. The price difference seems to be around $200 (~INR 10,000) between the two. The lenses are also considerably cheaper than their Canon\Nikon counterparts.

Having using the stabilized kit lens on Canon, I appreciate the importance of IS\VC for slow shutter speeds (not just low light, but also for effects). However, quite a few reviews seem to suggest that the non-VC version seems to be better optically overall. There seem to be more quality control issues with the VC version as well.

My question is two fold:

1. How do the 2 lenses compare against each other - is the premium for the VC version worthwhile for the quality trade-off?
2. How do the 2 compare to the Canon stabilized kit lens (EF-S 18-55mm IS) in terms of optical quality - are they worthwhile upgrades? (there is a similar question for Nikon)

Answer

I have the VC version (Nikon mount). I have tested it alongside my 50mm prime and found it to be just as sharp at f/3.2. It is very slightly softer at f/2.8, but only when looking at an artificial test pattern. That's one person's opinion based on a sample of one.

I have tested other non-professional zoom lenses (Nikon and Sigma) and the Tamron is far, far sharper than any of them. Unbelievably so.

A camera shop owner I know recommended the non-VC version as being very sharp and reliable (and inexpensive). He didn't say it was worth buying the non-VC version over the VC version. He just recommended it highly as a fantastic value. He did say he'd also sold a lot of the VC version and hadn't noticed any quality control issues.

Because the lens is sharp wide open, VC isn't really vital except in low light. I would say the VC is probably not worth the premium unless you intend to shoot a lot of low-light or indoors work without flash.

Can't help with the comparison to the Canon 18-55mm. I would imagine from what I've found compared to other Nikon equivalents that the Tamron will be noticeably sharper, especially wide open. You can use it at 2.8 or 3.2, whereas the Canon probably needs to be stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8 to be at its sharpest.

Check more discussion of this question.

How to avoid soft image at longest focal length with telephoto zoom lens?

Question

I have a Tamron 70 - 300mm lens. I have noticed that the best focus I can achieve at the 300mm setting is not as sharp as the focus I usually get at a lower setting. Is this a common problem? Is there any way to work around this? The camera I use is a Canon 1000D.

Answer

Every lens has a different sharpness. Some zooms are better at the beginning of the range, some in the middle, some at the end. Maybe yours isn't at its best on the end. Check online reviews, there sure be someone who noted that.

If not, some other things can be checked:

• sharpness change depending on the aperture size. How is the sharpness when closing aperture two or 3 stops down? For example, going to f8 or f11 if your lens is max f4.
• at 300mm and more, any move can produce a slight defocus. What speed are you shooting at? A basic rule is to use 1/zoom seconds. In your case, use a speed greater than 1/300 of a second.
• back or front focus problem: if the back/front focus is not correct, you will lose focus while changing the zoom factor. If you don't know what I'm talking about, check with a pro. Most of the time you can't do anything about it on your own.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is there any way to rig/hack the aperture wide open on a Nikon G lens so I can use it on a 35mm film camera?

Question

I have a (Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 with VC) and Nikon FM2 film camera.

I'm aware that the image circle on this lens isn't large enough for the 35mm film and I'm not worried about that. The only thing stopping me from using this lens on this camera is that the camera has no aperture control for it, so if I were to take a picture it would be at f/32.

Is there any sort of lens hack, destructive or non-destructive, which I can perform to lock the aperture wide open?

Answer

Bjørn Rørslett solved this problem by just jamming a few match-sticks into the aperture control lever of a lens

link

It's crude as hell, but apparently it worked well enough for a weekend.
Really, anything relatively clean, which is softer then the aperture lever (e.g. plastic, wood) would be effective.

^{I'm borrowing the picture from his site. I hope he doesn't mind}

Check more discussion of this question.

How do I find out which Nikon film cameras will work with my newer G F-mount lens?

Question

I want to pick up a film camera but I have a nice G lens (Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 with VC) and I'd really like to be able to use it.

I'm having a hard time understanding which cameras will be able to work either fully or partially. For example, if I put it on a Nikon FM3A it would work but without any aperture control or autofocus right? Most of the backwards compatibility charts I've seen are extremely confusing.

Answer

The two lens compatibility resources that I know of are nikonians.org and Ken Rockwell. A caveat is that they only deal with Nikon lenses; it's a harder question to answer with your Tamron.

If it really is like a Nikon G VR lens, then with the FM3A it won't work at all, but it won't damage your camera to attach it. On the other hand, everything including metering, focus, and VR would work on an F100.

Edit

Of course, as danio says, the lens needs to have a sufficient image circle to cover the film. This lens doesn't, so it won't work on any 35mm film camera unfortunately.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is there a Tamron 70-200mm lens which is optically superior to the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS?

Question

In the June 2011's Popular Photography magazine (Canada, hard copy, pg. 90) in an article titled "Star Power", on a one page overview of the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS II USM, the author (Julia Silber) claims (when talking about optical sharpness at 70, 135 and 200mm) that "While a significant improvement over its predecessor, which never rose above Very Good, its numbers were slightly below the comparable Nikon and Tamron glass, which scored excellent at all focal lengths."

I am assuming the predecessor could be any one of the Canon L 70-200mm, likely the f2.8 IS version. I don't own this lens and am still in the process of gathering information on the f4 (no IS) version which is the only one I will be able to afford but... So far all I have read was excellent when it came to the optics of these Canon lenses.

The question is: Which Tamron lens that is "excellent at all focal lengths" is the author talking about? Can someone point me to a good review or share their thoughts? (Purely optical quality preferably)

Answer

The author had to be speaking of the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF).

The answer is no, this lens is not superior to the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM mkII. Canon would never sell a single one if the Tamron was superior, considering the Canon runs about $1600USD more in price.

Some reviews of the Tamron:

• the-digital-picture
• dpreview

I think that the Tamron in its own right is a very nice lens, and I have seen many people use it before. But it cannot hold up to the Canon is rugged professional use and it is not going to be nearly as fast for autofocus.

Check more discussion of this question.