Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-25-2010, 01:55 AM   #1
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,255
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...

01-25-2010, 10:34 PM   #2
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
Veteran Member
heliphoto's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Region 5
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,540
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
Veteran Member
PentaxPoke's Avatar

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
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
taurus9: ...... but am glad to get the Kx & 17-50 non-VC instead.
That must be a killer setup for low-light!

QuoteQuote:
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.

QuoteQuote:
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
Veteran Member
Jasvox's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,110
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
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,255
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by PentaxPoke Quote
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
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 120
QuoteOriginally posted by heliphoto Quote
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
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,255
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by taurus9 Quote
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
Veteran Member
heliphoto's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Region 5
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,540
QuoteOriginally posted by taurus9 Quote
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
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 120
QuoteOriginally posted by heliphoto Quote
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.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
f/2.8, k-mount, lens, non-vc, pentax lens, photozone, slr lens, tamron, tamron 17-50 f/2.8, test, vc
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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 vagrant10 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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:48 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top