Not happy with my 17-50 Tamron for Canon

Iksobarg · 06-23-2015, 06:20 AM

The short of a long story.

Up until Fall last year I had a Tamron 17-50 that I was very very happy with on my K30 until I dropped it in the Mediterranean Sea.
I didn't replace the lens until early this year when I acquired a Canon 1000d for astrophotography and realized I could get a Tam 17-50 for the Canon and have two cameras to shoot with for the those special occasions.

I've had the Tamron for a few months now and simply not happy with the IQ. It's just not as good as my old Pentax one.

I'm definitely going to sell it but have since look for replacements and for the money I'm not sure I can do better. The Canon 17-55 is too pricey for me.

I guess I need a pat on the shoulder and need to hear someone say just get another Tam 17-50 and maybe it will be better.

Feeling sorta bad all over again for drowning my Pentax Tam17-50,

John

ChristianRock · 06-23-2015, 06:31 AM

If you got the newer image stabilized/built in motor version, every test shows it is not as good as the old screw drive model without stabilization that they still sell for Pentax. Not as sharp, has more distortion, etc. They re-did the optical formula to fit all the extra stuff in the barrel and that is the price for it...

Why Canon for astrography anyway? I would think the smaller crop would make it harder for sky pictures. The 17mm of the Tamron in the Pentax, becomes over 18mm in the Canon. I guess the question is, why not just get the Pentax again?

audiobomber · 06-23-2015, 06:32 AM

It is my impression from reading many relevant threads, that the Tamron 17-50mm has the least reliable auto-focus of any lens available for APS-C, across all brands. Even focus adjust won't always help.

My research showed the Sigma 17-50 is significantly sharper than the Tamron wide open, much better built and has silent and reliable AF. I bought one for my K-3 and I'm very impressed.

normhead · 06-23-2015, 06:33 AM

MIne, that I bought for my wife a couple years ago, has completely stopped auto focussing accurately and is going to have to be sent in for alignment. We love the lens, but right now it's a pain in the derriere. We already have a Sigma 18-250 in for a similar issue. Meanwhile my 18-35 that is two years older than either of them, just keeps chugging along. I'm starting to sour a little on 3rd party solutions.

Iksobarg · 06-23-2015, 06:42 AM

Many thanks for your quick responses.

Canon is overwhelmingly popular for many reasons in astrophotography circles. I didn't mind going that way since I liked the idea of a well rated second DSLR that could double for day and night use.

I do not know how to tell how old this Tamron is. It's made in Japan and has serial number 139736. (It's a 17-50 LD XR D ii)

I'll take a look at the Sigmas for Canon and perhaps ask prospective sellers about just how good the IQ of their units are.

Thanks for you inputs!!
JOhn

redcat · 06-23-2015, 07:06 AM

I used the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 and can confirm that the sigma doesn't have the focus issue (at least my sample doesn't

) and the IQ is great (comparable to primes) !

**TER-OR** · 06-23-2015, 07:12 AM

From what I gather, Tamron has some quality issues. If you have a good copy of a lens, they're great. Perhaps this lens could be sent in for a service to make sure it's all well-aligned and calibrated to a standard? They also seem to have different grades of lenses sharing the same focal ranges, which makes things confusing.

audiobomber · 06-23-2015, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by TER-OR

From what I gather, Tamron has some quality issues. If you have a good copy of a lens, they're great. Perhaps this lens could be sent in for a service to make sure it's all well-aligned and calibrated to a standard? They also seem to have different grades of lenses sharing the same focal ranges, which makes things confusing.

There are not grades of Tamron 17-50, but there are older and newer versions. Some say the old version, without image stabilization, is somewhat sharper than the new version with IS. Neither version is as sharp as a Sigma 17-50 wide open.

**TER-OR** · 06-23-2015, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by audiobomber

There are not grades of Tamron 17-50, but there are older and newer versions. Some say the old version, without image stabilization, is somewhat sharper than the new version with IS. Neither version is as sharp as a Sigma 17-50 wide open.

Thanks, that may be what I was thinking of. I knew there were a couple iterations of that lens. It's a range I've considered occasionally.

**clackers** · 06-23-2015, 10:18 PM

My copy of the 17-50 is just fine, Iksobarg - sharpness and AF. It's part of my two zoom setup along with the DA*50-135.

That's not to say there isn't sample variation, and that quality control isn't the same amongst all companies. Sorry to hear yours might not be great. :-(

ChristianRock · 06-24-2015, 10:51 AM

The XR version has the optical stabilization (according to my search) so that is the inferior version optically. Look for the older LD Di version.

I'd still get it for Pentax instead if I were you... the 1000D just isn't a good camera for low light shooting...

audiobomber · 06-24-2015, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by ChristianRock

The XR version has the optical stabilization (according to my search) so that is the inferior version optically. Look for the older LD Di version.

The Sigma is still sharper than either at wide apertures. Results are available on DXOMark but I'm not about to hunt for them again. I went through all that before I made the purchase. I also found corresponding opinions on several pro review sites.

ChristianRock · 06-24-2015, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

The Sigma is still sharper than either at wide apertures. Results are available on DXOMark but I'm not about to hunt for them again. I went through all that before I made the purchase. I also found corresponding opinions on several pro review sites.

That might be true, but the OP's question was, "why is this Tamron not as good as the one I used to have?" I'm just answering his question...

The price of the SIgma has come down, so it is clearly a good deal right now. Being about the same price as the Tamron these days, the Sigma is a good option indeed.

Iksobarg · 07-10-2015, 11:36 AM

Hello again. I'm doing some concurrent research but would appreciate knowing which Sigma 18-50 / 17-50 as there appear to be subtle variations.
Many thanks for your time and thoughts,
John

ChristianRock · 07-10-2015, 11:53 AM

The 18-50 is the older model. I don't think you want that one, the 17-50 is supposedly quite a bit better. The Sigma 17-50 is relatively new, so you don't have different optical versions, as far as I know - unlike the Tamron.

As a curiosity, what do you think makes the Canon 1000D a better astrophotography camera than the Pentax?

06-23-2015, 06:20 AM	#1
Iksobarg Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 208	Not happy with my 17-50 Tamron for Canon The short of a long story. Up until Fall last year I had a Tamron 17-50 that I was very very happy with on my K30 until I dropped it in the Mediterranean Sea. I didn't replace the lens until early this year when I acquired a Canon 1000d for astrophotography and realized I could get a Tam 17-50 for the Canon and have two cameras to shoot with for the those special occasions. I've had the Tamron for a few months now and simply not happy with the IQ. It's just not as good as my old Pentax one. I'm definitely going to sell it but have since look for replacements and for the money I'm not sure I can do better. The Canon 17-55 is too pricey for me. I guess I need a pat on the shoulder and need to hear someone say just get another Tam 17-50 and maybe it will be better. Feeling sorta bad all over again for drowning my Pentax Tam17-50, John

06-23-2015, 06:31 AM	#2
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	If you got the newer image stabilized/built in motor version, every test shows it is not as good as the old screw drive model without stabilization that they still sell for Pentax. Not as sharp, has more distortion, etc. They re-did the optical formula to fit all the extra stuff in the barrel and that is the price for it... Why Canon for astrography anyway? I would think the smaller crop would make it harder for sky pictures. The 17mm of the Tamron in the Pentax, becomes over 18mm in the Canon. I guess the question is, why not just get the Pentax again? Last edited by ChristianRock; 06-24-2015 at 10:45 AM.

06-24-2015, 01:55 PM	#12
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by ChristianRock The XR version has the optical stabilization (according to my search) so that is the inferior version optically. Look for the older LD Di version. The Sigma is still sharper than either at wide apertures. Results are available on DXOMark but I'm not about to hunt for them again. I went through all that before I made the purchase. I also found corresponding opinions on several pro review sites. Last edited by audiobomber; 06-24-2015 at 02:01 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Help me decide: Tamron 17-50, Pentax DA 16-45, or Sigma 17-50 for my K-01	yellowbrick	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	38	04-30-2016 07:26 AM
sigma 17-50 with k5iis not so good	zmohie	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	2	04-02-2015 01:49 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K-m + 50-135 + F 100 macro + sigma 17-70 + 50-150 + tamron 17-50 + metz 50 AF	blem49	Sold Items	11	07-26-2013 03:25 PM
Tamron 17-50mm, Tamron 28-75mm, Sigma 17-70mm, which lens for my trip to Greece?	macky112	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	11-20-2011 03:08 PM
Some Pic with my new Tamron 17-50	shahnavaz	Post Your Photos!	2	08-10-2008 12:06 PM

06-23-2015, 06:32 AM	#3
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	It is my impression from reading many relevant threads, that the Tamron 17-50mm has the least reliable auto-focus of any lens available for APS-C, across all brands. Even focus adjust won't always help. My research showed the Sigma 17-50 is significantly sharper than the Tamron wide open, much better built and has silent and reliable AF. I bought one for my K-3 and I'm very impressed.

06-23-2015, 06:33 AM	#4
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	MIne, that I bought for my wife a couple years ago, has completely stopped auto focussing accurately and is going to have to be sent in for alignment. We love the lens, but right now it's a pain in the derriere. We already have a Sigma 18-250 in for a similar issue. Meanwhile my 18-35 that is two years older than either of them, just keeps chugging along. I'm starting to sour a little on 3rd party solutions.

06-23-2015, 06:42 AM	#5
Iksobarg Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 208 Original Poster	Many thanks for your quick responses. Canon is overwhelmingly popular for many reasons in astrophotography circles. I didn't mind going that way since I liked the idea of a well rated second DSLR that could double for day and night use. I do not know how to tell how old this Tamron is. It's made in Japan and has serial number 139736. (It's a 17-50 LD XR D ii) I'll take a look at the Sigmas for Canon and perhaps ask prospective sellers about just how good the IQ of their units are. Thanks for you inputs!! JOhn

06-23-2015, 07:06 AM	#6
redcat Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: Paris Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,939	I used the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 and can confirm that the sigma doesn't have the focus issue (at least my sample doesn't ) and the IQ is great (comparable to primes) !

06-23-2015, 07:12 AM	#7
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	From what I gather, Tamron has some quality issues. If you have a good copy of a lens, they're great. Perhaps this lens could be sent in for a service to make sure it's all well-aligned and calibrated to a standard? They also seem to have different grades of lenses sharing the same focal ranges, which makes things confusing.

06-23-2015, 07:36 AM	#8
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by TER-OR From what I gather, Tamron has some quality issues. If you have a good copy of a lens, they're great. Perhaps this lens could be sent in for a service to make sure it's all well-aligned and calibrated to a standard? They also seem to have different grades of lenses sharing the same focal ranges, which makes things confusing. There are not grades of Tamron 17-50, but there are older and newer versions. Some say the old version, without image stabilization, is somewhat sharper than the new version with IS. Neither version is as sharp as a Sigma 17-50 wide open.

06-23-2015, 07:48 AM	#9
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	Originally posted by audiobomber There are not grades of Tamron 17-50, but there are older and newer versions. Some say the old version, without image stabilization, is somewhat sharper than the new version with IS. Neither version is as sharp as a Sigma 17-50 wide open. Thanks, that may be what I was thinking of. I knew there were a couple iterations of that lens. It's a range I've considered occasionally.

06-23-2015, 10:18 PM	#10
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	My copy of the 17-50 is just fine, Iksobarg - sharpness and AF. It's part of my two zoom setup along with the DA*50-135. That's not to say there isn't sample variation, and that quality control isn't the same amongst all companies. Sorry to hear yours might not be great. :-(

06-24-2015, 10:51 AM	#11
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	The XR version has the optical stabilization (according to my search) so that is the inferior version optically. Look for the older LD Di version. I'd still get it for Pentax instead if I were you... the 1000D just isn't a good camera for low light shooting...

06-24-2015, 02:05 PM	#13
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	Originally posted by audiobomber The Sigma is still sharper than either at wide apertures. Results are available on DXOMark but I'm not about to hunt for them again. I went through all that before I made the purchase. I also found corresponding opinions on several pro review sites. That might be true, but the OP's question was, "why is this Tamron not as good as the one I used to have?" I'm just answering his question... The price of the SIgma has come down, so it is clearly a good deal right now. Being about the same price as the Tamron these days, the Sigma is a good option indeed.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-10-2015, 11:36 AM	#14
Iksobarg Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 208 Original Poster	Hello again. I'm doing some concurrent research but would appreciate knowing which Sigma 18-50 / 17-50 as there appear to be subtle variations. Many thanks for your time and thoughts, John

07-10-2015, 11:53 AM	#15
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	The 18-50 is the older model. I don't think you want that one, the 17-50 is supposedly quite a bit better. The Sigma 17-50 is relatively new, so you don't have different optical versions, as far as I know - unlike the Tamron. As a curiosity, what do you think makes the Canon 1000D a better astrophotography camera than the Pentax?