Have Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. What next?

GlennT · Mar 30, 2015

Somewhat of a long brain dump, so my apologies up front.

I guess I could preface this with the fact that I had planned on getting a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L (Mark I), but never had the funds. Now I do. Also, I have a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L and I was planning on something like the 16-35mm to cover the wider range, with the 24-70 living on the camera at most times.

The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 has always been a decent lens (bought 2007), but I've been less happy with it since since I got a Canon 7D. Even with micro adjustments, it either slightly front focuses or back focuses, depending on which end I adjust for (i.e. doesn't focus linearly). It's really only a problem at f/2.8, but it's annoying to know the issue is there. More than anything, I'm sick of the AF hunting in low light.

I've shot with a friend's 24-70mm f/2.8L several times, and really like that the filter threading is the same 77mm as my 70-200mm. I'd have to buy one used though.

The 24-70mm f/2.8L Mark II is doable, but I'm purely a hobbyist; $2000 is tougher to justify as a result. I fear this is the lens I want, even if it requires larger filters.

The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC is enticing, particularly since it appears that the VC performs well, and it is a fairly sharp lens (if you get a good copy.) I rarely shoot video, but IS/VC/OS would be nice. That said, I originally bought a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 and ended up with the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L simply because it felt better and I was happier with the AF, so I have mixed feelings about Tamron in general.

And then I'm also considering the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8. I haven't handled one in person. I know it's a well regarded lens, and I could cover a pretty good range with just two lenses, while saving a considerable amount of money. I know it's probably the lens I should want. I don't know if I'm just skeptical, or if I'm preferring the 24-70 range, or if I just fear buyer's remorse; a feeling that I settled for the cheaper option. It does take 77mm filters, so big bonus there. While I know it's an upgrade from the Tamron, just how much of an upgrade, I don't know.

I know 24-70 would suite me just fine. When using the 17-50, I tend to find myself wanting more on the long end than the wide end. I do shoot landscapes occasionally though; more rarely do I shoot large group photos, but it does happen. I can certainly get by with the Tamron for those shots, since those shots generally need more DoF and keep it out of the "dangerous" f/2.8 territory.

I feel like I'm rationalizing myself in circles. Any thoughts?

Regards,
Glenn

beagle100 · Apr 3, 2015

GlennT said:
Somewhat of a long brain dump, so my apologies up front.

I guess I could preface this with the fact that I had planned on getting a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L (Mark I), but never had the funds. Now I do. Also, I have a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L and I was planning on something like the 16-35mm to cover the wider range, with the 24-70 living on the camera at most times.

The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 has always been a decent lens (bought 2007), but I've been less happy with it since since I got a Canon 7D. Even with micro adjustments, it either slightly front focuses or back focuses, depending on which end I adjust for (i.e. doesn't focus linearly). It's really only a problem at f/2.8, but it's annoying to know the issue is there. More than anything, I'm sick of the AF hunting in low light.

I've shot with a friend's 24-70mm f/2.8L several times, and really like that the filter threading is the same 77mm as my 70-200mm. I'd have to buy one used though.

The 24-70mm f/2.8L Mark II is doable, but I'm purely a hobbyist; $2000 is tougher to justify as a result. I fear this is the lens I want, even if it requires larger filters.

The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC is enticing, particularly since it appears that the VC performs well, and it is a fairly sharp lens (if you get a good copy.) I rarely shoot video, but IS/VC/OS would be nice. That said, I originally bought a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 and ended up with the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L simply because it felt better and I was happier with the AF, so I have mixed feelings about Tamron in general.

And then I'm also considering the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8. I haven't handled one in person. I know it's a well regarded lens, and I could cover a pretty good range with just two lenses, while saving a considerable amount of money. I know it's probably the lens I should want. I don't know if I'm just skeptical, or if I'm preferring the 24-70 range, or if I just fear buyer's remorse; a feeling that I settled for the cheaper option. It does take 77mm filters, so big bonus there. While I know it's an upgrade from the Tamron, just how much of an upgrade, I don't know.

I know 24-70 would suite me just fine. When using the 17-50, I tend to find myself wanting more on the long end than the wide end. I do shoot landscapes occasionally though; more rarely do I shoot large group photos, but it does happen. I can certainly get by with the Tamron for those shots, since those shots generally need more DoF and keep it out of the "dangerous" f/2.8 territory.

I feel like I'm rationalizing myself in circles. Any thoughts?

Regards,
Glenn

you probably are "rationalizing in circles" For me f2.8 on the Tamron is not "dangerous territory" but I use the Sigma 30mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.8 more than the Tamron for inside low light situations. If you like f2.8 zooms on a crop then look at a used Canon 17-55 or Sigma 17-50. Many think the Canon 15-85 is actually a better "standard" zoom on a crop

bigal1000 · Apr 4, 2015

Take some photos ?

jaomul · Apr 4, 2015

You seem to have the money. I'd just buy the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 and tamron 24-70 f2.8, your still quits in on the Canon. I'd imagine the newer tamrons don't have problems so much with usm and that.

I also think last poster made good point

GlennT · Apr 6, 2015

I actually picked up a canon 17-55mm on Tuesday. We'll see how it goes. So far, I'm pleased. I have found it focus hunting in a couple low light situations, but it doesn't do it as slow or severely as the tamron. It feels tremendously better than the 28-135mm kit lens and even a good but better than the tamron. With just a quick check, and no focus charts, the AF looks good throughout the range. I just have to get over glass elitism and the fact that this doesn't have a red ring on it.

I do think the issue with the tamron is with its age and the fact that they reverse engineer the canon mount. If I had a newer copy, or had this one updated and adjusted, it would probably be fine. It's great on the old rebel XT.

We're in Florida, on spring break with the kids. Haven't got out with the camera yet, but I should get plenty of shooting in this week.

Thanks everybody