Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC test on photozone

asdf · 01-25-2010, 01:55 AM

Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] VC (Canon) - Review / Test Report

It looks like it's actually noticeably inferior to the non-VC variant. I post this here, because a lot of people on this forum and photozone like the non-VC version of this lens. An in-body image stabilizer and the older non-VC lens seems like a more sensible combination...

taurus9 · 01-25-2010, 10:34 PM

I was thinking of picking the VC version up for my Canon system -- this was before the photozone test, but am glad to get the Kx & 17-50 non-VC instead.

heliphoto · 01-25-2010, 11:12 PM

That's too bad - I was considering that lens rather than the EF-S if I ever got a crop sensor Canon - I'll probably still consider the non Vietcong version if I ever get a 7D - I'm just not finding stabilization all that necessary on shorter focal lengths...

PentaxPoke · 01-25-2010, 11:28 PM

Do you think it may have anything to do with the fact that the new lens is tested on the higher resolution 15MP 50D, and the old one was tested on the 8mp 350D?

I notice that sometimes Klaus rates the lenses lower on the 15MP camera. For example, for the EF 70-200L f/4 IS USM, (the lens he said the "EOS goddess of mercy" inspired, you know the lens that Ken Rockwell of all people said is "the sharpest zoom lens I have ever used") he gave 5 stars in optical quality. When he tested again, he gave it 4 stars.

Maybe that is not it because when I look at it, the Tamron with VC drops off in edge sharpness where the original doesn't. Could it be the optical element used for the VC?

Jewelltrail · 01-25-2010, 11:45 PM

Quote:

taurus9: ...... but am glad to get the Kx & 17-50 non-VC instead.

That must be a killer setup for low-light!

Quote:

heliophoto: I'm just not finding stabilization all that necessary on shorter focal lengths...

Precisely my sentiments on IS with wide angle. So, if you ever do pick up a CS Canon, just pick up a used, original 17-50 then.

Quote:

Pentax Poke: Maybe that is not it because when I look at it, the Tamron with VC drops off in edge sharpness where the original doesn't. Could it be the optical element used for the VC?

I am not knowledgeable enough to answer this, though I wish I were. It boggles my mind why Tamron would mess with such a good thing.

Jasvox · 01-26-2010, 12:01 AM

The VC version lists for $650 and the non VC you can buy for $350-399...hmm, that's a lot for something that we have built into our cameras already. I have the standard version and it works just fine as is.

Jason

asdf · 01-26-2010, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by PentaxPoke

Do you think it may have anything to do with the fact that the new lens is tested on the higher resolution 15MP 50D, and the old one was tested on the 8mp 350D?

I notice that sometimes Klaus rates the lenses lower on the 15MP camera. For example, for the EF 70-200L f/4 IS USM, (the lens he said the "EOS goddess of mercy" inspired, you know the lens that Ken Rockwell of all people said is "the sharpest zoom lens I have ever used") he gave 5 stars in optical quality. When he tested again, he gave it 4 stars.

Maybe that is not it because when I look at it, the Tamron with VC drops off in edge sharpness where the original doesn't. Could it be the optical element used for the VC?

Yeah, I'm not sure whether his stars are fair. He mentions that "There's also a bit of a field curvature problem here." If the field curvature is significant, then the borders and corners of his ISO chart are out of focus. Leica 35/1.4 Summilux-R would really stink in this kind of a test. But "3 stars" means "good" on photozone. Of course, it's best to test it out yourself, but not everybody has that luxury.

I tend to post links to websites...here's one:
http://diglloyd.com/articles/UnderstandingOptics/understanding-field-curvature.html

Last edited by asdf; 01-26-2010 at 01:58 AM.

taurus9 · 01-26-2010, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by heliphoto

That's too bad - I was considering that lens rather than the EF-S if I ever got a crop sensor Canon - I'll probably still consider the non Vietcong version if I ever get a 7D - I'm just not finding stabilization all that necessary on shorter focal lengths...

For photography, I would agree that IS in those focal lengths are not really necessary. If you plan to use video in the 7D, then I would consider getting an image stabilized lens because it eliminates the 'shakes' -- makes for better movies without getting headaches.

Of course, with Pentax, all lenses are stabilized and that eliminates having to decide to IS or not to IS.

asdf · 01-26-2010, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by taurus9

If you plan to use video in the 7D, then I would consider getting an image stabilized lens because it eliminates the 'shakes' -- makes for better movies without getting headaches.

Yeah, IS stabilization in a camcorder makes the shakes smoother. They're still there, but not as distracting and nauseating.

heliphoto · 01-26-2010, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by taurus9

For photography, I would agree that IS in those focal lengths are not really necessary. If you plan to use video in the 7D, then I would consider getting an image stabilized lens because it eliminates the 'shakes' -- makes for better movies without getting headaches.

Of course, with Pentax, all lenses are stabilized and that eliminates having to decide to IS or not to IS.

True, stabilized video is nice, and in my limited experience, the Pentax SR seems superior to IS for video. From what I remember, the K-7 seemed to have a soft "edge" to it's SR travel - when it reached a limit of it's compensation, the transition to movement seemend smoother than I get from the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS, which is fine within it's stabilized range, but then there's a bumpy sudden transition to movement when the limit is exceeded. Also the sound of the IS lens is more prominent in the recording that anything I heard from the SR on the k-7. It would be interesting if someone who had these cameras side by side would perform a comparison (I should have when I had the chance, but didn't).

taurus9 · 01-26-2010, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by heliphoto

True, stabilized video is nice, and in my limited experience, the Pentax SR seems superior to IS for video. From what I remember, the K-7 seemed to have a soft "edge" to it's SR travel - when it reached a limit of it's compensation, the transition to movement seemend smoother than I get from the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS, which is fine within it's stabilized range, but then there's a bumpy sudden transition to movement when the limit is exceeded. Also the sound of the IS lens is more prominent in the recording that anything I heard from the SR on the k-7. It would be interesting if someone who had these cameras side by side would perform a comparison (I should have when I had the chance, but didn't).

I can say that Pentax SR on the Kx is quite effective, but once it gets really bumpy, then the sound gets in the way of the video. Otherwise, under normal circumstances when I'm trying to be as stable as possible, the sound with SR on is acceptable (to me) on the video.

The K7 (and 7D for that matter), does let you mount an external mic. That may help with keeping the IS/SR sound away.

01-25-2010, 01:55 AM	#1
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC test on photozone Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] VC (Canon) - Review / Test Report It looks like it's actually noticeably inferior to the non-VC variant. I post this here, because a lot of people on this forum and photozone like the non-VC version of this lens. An in-body image stabilizer and the older non-VC lens seems like a more sensible combination...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Tamron SP 24-48 f3.5-3.8 test shots	seacapt	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	0	04-08-2009 10:00 PM
test shots w/ tamron 28-75 f2.8	mike.hiran	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	06-19-2008 10:26 PM
photozone.de lens comprasion, tokina 16-50 vs tamron 17-50	hll	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	05-21-2008 02:42 AM
Photozone test of the DA*200/2.8	thibs	Pentax News and Rumors	26	02-21-2008 11:07 AM
FA 50 F/1.4 Test at PhotoZone	XKimZe	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	04-20-2007 08:52 AM

01-25-2010, 10:34 PM	#2
taurus9 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: British Columbia Posts: 120	I was thinking of picking the VC version up for my Canon system -- this was before the photozone test, but am glad to get the Kx & 17-50 non-VC instead.

01-25-2010, 11:12 PM	#3
heliphoto Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Region 5 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,539	That's too bad - I was considering that lens rather than the EF-S if I ever got a crop sensor Canon - I'll probably still consider the non Vietcong version if I ever get a 7D - I'm just not finding stabilization all that necessary on shorter focal lengths...

01-25-2010, 11:28 PM	#4
PentaxPoke Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 1,411	Do you think it may have anything to do with the fact that the new lens is tested on the higher resolution 15MP 50D, and the old one was tested on the 8mp 350D? I notice that sometimes Klaus rates the lenses lower on the 15MP camera. For example, for the EF 70-200L f/4 IS USM, (the lens he said the "EOS goddess of mercy" inspired, you know the lens that Ken Rockwell of all people said is "the sharpest zoom lens I have ever used") he gave 5 stars in optical quality. When he tested again, he gave it 4 stars. Maybe that is not it because when I look at it, the Tamron with VC drops off in edge sharpness where the original doesn't. Could it be the optical element used for the VC?

01-25-2010, 11:45 PM	#5
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: taurus9: ...... but am glad to get the Kx & 17-50 non-VC instead. That must be a killer setup for low-light! Quote: heliophoto: I'm just not finding stabilization all that necessary on shorter focal lengths... Precisely my sentiments on IS with wide angle. So, if you ever do pick up a CS Canon, just pick up a used, original 17-50 then. Quote: Pentax Poke: Maybe that is not it because when I look at it, the Tamron with VC drops off in edge sharpness where the original doesn't. Could it be the optical element used for the VC? I am not knowledgeable enough to answer this, though I wish I were. It boggles my mind why Tamron would mess with such a good thing.

01-26-2010, 12:01 AM	#6
Jasvox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,107	The VC version lists for $650 and the non VC you can buy for $350-399...hmm, that's a lot for something that we have built into our cameras already. I have the standard version and it works just fine as is. Jason

01-26-2010, 01:50 AM	#7
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252 Original Poster	Originally posted by PentaxPoke Do you think it may have anything to do with the fact that the new lens is tested on the higher resolution 15MP 50D, and the old one was tested on the 8mp 350D? I notice that sometimes Klaus rates the lenses lower on the 15MP camera. For example, for the EF 70-200L f/4 IS USM, (the lens he said the "EOS goddess of mercy" inspired, you know the lens that Ken Rockwell of all people said is "the sharpest zoom lens I have ever used") he gave 5 stars in optical quality. When he tested again, he gave it 4 stars. Maybe that is not it because when I look at it, the Tamron with VC drops off in edge sharpness where the original doesn't. Could it be the optical element used for the VC? Yeah, I'm not sure whether his stars are fair. He mentions that "There's also a bit of a field curvature problem here." If the field curvature is significant, then the borders and corners of his ISO chart are out of focus. Leica 35/1.4 Summilux-R would really stink in this kind of a test. But "3 stars" means "good" on photozone. Of course, it's best to test it out yourself, but not everybody has that luxury. I tend to post links to websites...here's one: http://diglloyd.com/articles/UnderstandingOptics/understanding-field-curvature.html Last edited by asdf; 01-26-2010 at 01:58 AM.

01-26-2010, 08:19 AM	#8
taurus9 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: British Columbia Posts: 120	Originally posted by heliphoto That's too bad - I was considering that lens rather than the EF-S if I ever got a crop sensor Canon - I'll probably still consider the non Vietcong version if I ever get a 7D - I'm just not finding stabilization all that necessary on shorter focal lengths... For photography, I would agree that IS in those focal lengths are not really necessary. If you plan to use video in the 7D, then I would consider getting an image stabilized lens because it eliminates the 'shakes' -- makes for better movies without getting headaches. Of course, with Pentax, all lenses are stabilized and that eliminates having to decide to IS or not to IS.

01-26-2010, 08:24 AM	#9
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252 Original Poster	Originally posted by taurus9 If you plan to use video in the 7D, then I would consider getting an image stabilized lens because it eliminates the 'shakes' -- makes for better movies without getting headaches. Yeah, IS stabilization in a camcorder makes the shakes smoother. They're still there, but not as distracting and nauseating.

01-26-2010, 09:36 AM	#10
heliphoto Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Region 5 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,539	Originally posted by taurus9 For photography, I would agree that IS in those focal lengths are not really necessary. If you plan to use video in the 7D, then I would consider getting an image stabilized lens because it eliminates the 'shakes' -- makes for better movies without getting headaches. Of course, with Pentax, all lenses are stabilized and that eliminates having to decide to IS or not to IS. True, stabilized video is nice, and in my limited experience, the Pentax SR seems superior to IS for video. From what I remember, the K-7 seemed to have a soft "edge" to it's SR travel - when it reached a limit of it's compensation, the transition to movement seemend smoother than I get from the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS, which is fine within it's stabilized range, but then there's a bumpy sudden transition to movement when the limit is exceeded. Also the sound of the IS lens is more prominent in the recording that anything I heard from the SR on the k-7. It would be interesting if someone who had these cameras side by side would perform a comparison (I should have when I had the chance, but didn't).

01-26-2010, 04:06 PM	#11
taurus9 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: British Columbia Posts: 120	Originally posted by heliphoto True, stabilized video is nice, and in my limited experience, the Pentax SR seems superior to IS for video. From what I remember, the K-7 seemed to have a soft "edge" to it's SR travel - when it reached a limit of it's compensation, the transition to movement seemend smoother than I get from the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS, which is fine within it's stabilized range, but then there's a bumpy sudden transition to movement when the limit is exceeded. Also the sound of the IS lens is more prominent in the recording that anything I heard from the SR on the k-7. It would be interesting if someone who had these cameras side by side would perform a comparison (I should have when I had the chance, but didn't). I can say that Pentax SR on the Kx is quite effective, but once it gets really bumpy, then the sound gets in the way of the video. Otherwise, under normal circumstances when I'm trying to be as stable as possible, the sound with SR on is acceptable (to me) on the video. The K7 (and 7D for that matter), does let you mount an external mic. That may help with keeping the IS/SR sound away.