Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8?

FrankLad

FrankLad

I'm looking to add a zoom lens to my Canon 7D kit.

My sights have been set on the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 for a while, but considering I mostly do this whole video thing for fun... I can't really justify quite that much for a lens. AND there's the hesitation about paying that much for a non-L-Series lens when I could get the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L for just a bit more.

So I've been doing a bit of research on the Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8. The reviews are very positive overall, and the footage I've seen of it paired with the Canon7D is impressive.

Key features I'm after: constant aperture, relatively fast (f/2.8), usable range (~27-80mm w/ APS-C crop on a 7D)
It's reportedly parfocal. If so, that's a very nice bonus.

At less than half the price of the Canon 17-55, it seems a little too good to be true.

Anyone had experience with this lens?
 
Last edited:
Sort by date Sort by votes
I own it and use it on a 7D. It's not terrible, but it's no Canon glass. The autofocus is awful, which doesn't matter for video, and has a really, really short turn focus wheel. It's a bit softer all around than my Canon lenses, even the cheap ones.

I use it when I need either really wide or something a little versatile indoors. It's the same bang for the buck ratio as an L lens. An L lens has bigger bang, but also bigger buck.

Rokinon however is the best Bang for buck I've encountered haha. No zooms though.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I know this doesn't answer your question about the Tamron. But I have the Canon 17-55, and I love that. It's an incredible lens. The IS works great. It's as close to an L lens as it gets (without actually being an L).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I just bought the Tamron a week ago, online from a guy who went from the Tamron to the Canon counterpart because of the noisy autofocus.


I haven't had the opportunity to really use it in some filmmaking. I really bought it to have some wide angle angle range. I've spent months if not years hesitating about this one and finally got it when I was very pissed lately for not having wide angle. I haven't tested it enough to give an opinion, but so far I am considering getting an ND filter and some stabilization (which would be as expensive as the lens).

But I'm pretty confident I won't need any other lens for a long time with this one.

Can you share the amazing footage you've watched when paired with a 7D ?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
PaulGriffith said:
Rokinon however is the best Bang for buck I've encountered haha. No zooms though.
Click to expand...

I've read really positive stuff about Rokinon/Samyang. (Not to mention I completely favor manual aperture rings over automatic or camera-set aperture.) Been tempted by their 35mm f/1.4.

As you mention, though... no zooms. :( And a constant-aperture zoom is something I'm after for doc work.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jeff Troiano said:
I know this doesn't answer your question about the Tamron. But I have the Canon 17-55, and I love that. It's an incredible lens. The IS works great. It's as close to an L lens as it gets (without actually being an L).
Click to expand...

Hi Jeff! I appreciate the feedback on that Canon. Do you happen to know if it's parfocal?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
FrankLad said:
Hi Jeff! I appreciate the feedback on that Canon. Do you happen to know if it's parfocal?
Click to expand...


I don't know if there are any "still" lens that are parafocal. Of course I might be wrong. This was a a topic of discussion over at dvinfo , in the fs100 forum. I know there are true "film/video" lens, that are, but that's also what makes them so expensive.

I'm at work until this evening, but when I get home, I'll shoot a small video, and see what I end up with, as far as parafocal goes. I'm suppose to use the 17-55 on my first real shoot, tomorrow. I just received the lens about 2 weeks ago, and have only done some testing around my house.

If I had o guess, I would say its not parafocal, but again, I'll test it tonight.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jeff Troiano said:
I don't know if there are any "still" lens that are parafocal. Of course I might be wrong. This was a a topic of discussion over at dvinfo , in the fs100 forum. I know there are true "film/video" lens, that are, but that's also what makes them so expensive.

I'm at work until this evening, but when I get home, I'll shoot a small video, and see what I end up with, as far as parafocal goes. I'm suppose to use the 17-55 on my first real shoot, tomorrow. I just received the lens about 2 weeks ago, and have only done some testing around my house.

If I had o guess, I would say its not parafocal, but again, I'll test it tonight.
Click to expand...

Hey Jeff! Thanks so much, man! But don't go through a lot of trouble on my account.

I have at least one lens (Tokina 11-16 f/2.8) that is parfocal, but it's definitely a lower zoom range / wide-shots-only kind of lens.

P.S. I did a little legwork on my own in regards to whether the Canon 17-55 is parfocal, and found conflicting information.

The way I plan to use the lens is to zoom in on the subject to set focus initially, then pull back wide before starting the shot.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Anyone by chance have experience with the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8? (Didn't want to start a new thread.)

I own a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and really like it... though I've had no experience with their zooms.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Here's a quick test video I shot, and uploaded to YouTube. Nothing fancy. Its the Canon 17-55 @f2.8. I's say its not totally parafocal, but its not horrible. I don't yet have a follow focus, so my zoom is kind of jerky. Was trying to be smooth, and not shake the camera at the same time.


http://youtu.be/-M6Xdg6fciM

Im sorry, I don't know how to embed the video here.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jeff Troiano said:
Here's a quick test video I shot, and uploaded to YouTube. Nothing fancy. Its the Canon 17-55 @f2.8. I's say its not totally parafocal, but its not horrible. I don't yet have a follow focus, so my zoom is kind of jerky. Was trying to be smooth, and not shake the camera at the same time.


http://youtu.be/-M6Xdg6fciM

Im sorry, I don't know how to embed the video here.
Click to expand...

Jeff, thanks so much for taking the time to shoot and upload this!
Judging from your footage, it seems like it would work. Particularly if I'll be establishing focus on the ending shot (ie. when zoomed) and using mostly quick zooms.


Oh, and the YouTube embed works by pasting just the video parameter "-M6Xdg6fciM" between the "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=" tags:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M6Xdg6fciM


Thanks again!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top