2.8 Third Party Lenses

[Jareden]

+1 ako dito... and also worth checking is the tokina 12-24... 

this one is f4. you probably meant Tokina 11-16mm f2.8.

• Tweet

[unnonymous]

am planning to get the 28-75mm this weekend...ive heard a lot of good reviews on this,,,

Chief psot your review as well..  planning to get one as well

• Tweet

[amateur photog]

Any sigma 17-70 2.8 users/feedbacks?TIA

Chiloy,

Have the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 Macro.  Great lens and sharp.  Have tried it on head shots.  Nice.  Wala lang IS/OS/VC.

You can see some test shots I made at:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotog400d/sets/72157608809212909/detail/

Did these because I am intending to sell the lens.  Have a 18-50mm/f2.8 already.

• Tweet

[ikitub]

i want the tamron 17-50.. sana di ako magsisi once na binili ko toh..

pa OT lang po ng konte.. hehe... .. chiloy kaw ba yan from tenderbobs?

• Tweet

[Richard_Lim]

Dilemma:

Tokina 16-50mm?
or Sigma 17-55mm?

 

• Tweet

[amateur photog]

i want the tamron 17-50.. sana di ako magsisi once na binili ko toh..

pa OT lang po ng konte.. hehe... .. chiloy kaw ba yan from tenderbobs?

Daming magandang reviews sa Tamron 17-50/f2.8 kahit sa mga foreign forum and reviews. 

• Tweet

[vtec]

Daming magandang reviews sa Tamron 17-50/f2.8 kahit sa mga foreign forum and reviews. 

Tamron 17-50 f2.8? I own one. Great lens! No regrets if you'll be gettin' this!

• Tweet

[dockiks]

Tamron 17-50 f2.8? I own one. Great lens! No regrets if you'll be gettin' this!

+1 on this. My Tamron 17-50 is sharp (even at 2.8, more so at 4), and very usable in low light. Even if it doesn't have IS, the price difference versus the Canon 17-55 2.8 makes the Tamron a very attractive and and competitive alternative

• Tweet

[edison88sia]

+1 also for the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. I've read so many good reviews. Got it and had no regrets since early this year. Been shooting in low light with no issues. Very sharp.

• Tweet

[MacBro]

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is an award-winning lens.  Am sure you'll be pleased with it.

• Tweet

[par3k_ryan]

any idea how much yun tamron 17-50 f2.8?
Thanks

• Tweet

[edison88sia]

should be somewhere around 17 - 17.5K

• Tweet

[dockiks]

Got mine at Avenue for 17K last October. It comes with a petal hood too

• Tweet

[milesyoung]

which has better IQ tamron 17-50 or 28-75? and which is a better portrait lens? tia!

• Tweet

[bsantos]

+1 ako sa tamron. got a sharp copy of 28-75 f2.8. wag nga pala kayo mag-alala sa service center nyan, kayang-kaya ni Addy (search nyo na lang thread tungkol sa kanya) i-repair or i-cleaning yan...

• Tweet

[gat3keeper]

I got the same question and I think sir caterpillar has the best answer for it. I'll share his PM regarding tamron 17-50 vs 28-75.

Me wrote: "Hello sir... another question, between the two, which is better optically.. better contrast and saturation? "

Catterpillar wrote: "I no longer have the 28-75 di, but I had it for 2.5 years, used heavily, so I know how it performs. I now have the 17-50 f2.8 Di-2 for over a year now. Optically, the two lenses are very close. A good copy of either will really surprise you.

I still think though, the 28-75, from 40-75mm is sharper, like a prime optically at f4. At f2.8, from 40mm-75mm, it is very, very good. At f4, it is outstanding. My copy is weak at 28-35mm at f2.8. Good, but not very good. You have to stop it down to f4 to be very good, then f5.6 to be excellent at 28-35mm. Tekgik's copy, ,w/c I have tested is very good even at 28mm. Shows you there are variance in copies. But regardless, as long as it is not a dud, I think the 28-75 is optically on par with the Ls. ln fact, mine exceeded my 24-105L at 65-75mm.

What is not to like about the 28-75? To me, the bokeh. Not as good as the 24-70L and 24-105L. It's a bit harsh not soft. AF is also not fast. I didn't say slow, because it isn't. You can do weddings and won't hunt much compared to the sigma 24-70. It is also a bit noisy, a whirr sound that some may not like. It's not silent. That's the same for the 17-50.

It also has a warm/yellowish color cast when new, but is gone if you use it in time. But it is still slightly warm than the Ls. Actually, one can also say, the Ls are cooler, and the tamron is just right. Also, the macro of this lens is just so-so. It's not as sharp as the 17-50. The latter beats the 28-75 when it comes to macro shooting.

The 17-50 is a big improvement from the 28-75. But the range is limited and you can't go 35FF with this. But for a crop body, minus the not-so-fast and noisy AF, it is perfect and cheap compared to the 17-55 efs IS. But it is 1/3 cheaper, smaller, lighter. Mine also no longer has a color cast when new. It is not as "warm" as my 28-75, but closer to the Ls now. The bokeh seems better too, but of course, it is hard to get past 50mm. Oh, it's really a 16-46mm lens. It is a bit wider than what it is listed. At least that's when you are shooting close.

And it has a nasty barrel distortion at 17mm, maybe up to 25mm.  But the macro is much, much better than the 28-75. It is sharp. Much sharper than the 28-75.

I say, if you want decent portrait lens on the go, the 28-75mm is better, especially in a 35FF body. If you want wide to mid, get the 17-50 f2.8. I sold my 28-75 because in my experience, even if you have f2.8, when the light is down, you'll get camera shake at 75mm. So, I traded f2.8 for f4 with IS and a longer range. I never regretted that move. That range (24mm, vs 28mm, and 76-105mm extra),  plus IS were a big shot percentage improver. But I swear, in terms of sharpness, the tamron wins hands down. I have more confidence in printing an 11x14 f4 from the tamron at 75mm, than the 24-105L. Not that the L is not sharp. It is, but the sharpness of the tamron exceeds the L, that I know I won't have problems with the resolution and contrast even on a 20x30 print. I have to stop down to f5.6 or f7.1 to get the same confidence with my L. Fortunately, I don't print those sizes often.

Either way, you have to think of your other lenses if you are to get either. The supporting lens plays a crucial part too in the big scheme of things. The 28-75 is best paired with a 10-22 for events. You could pair with with the 17-50 too, but I think wider is better overall. The 17-50 can be paired with the 10-22 as well, but most opt for a 70-200 solution. So, you have to think of how your other lens will fit in.

The good thing about the 17-50 to a degree, you can go to a 3-lens solution that is more equatable in FL distribution (10-22/17-50/70-200).  It is also a lighter and smaller package.

If you are going 35FF, get the 28-75 f2.8 Di. It is perfect. You want a better crop and wide performance, get the 17-50. Either one will do. The 17-50 is better overall, since it has improved on the design than the 28-75. But optically, they are very close."

which has better IQ tamron 17-50 or 28-75? and which is a better portrait lens? tia!

• Tweet

[zoom]

Hi,

How would you guys compare this with the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS...not looking at the price. Since we know that Canon's 17-55 IS is much expensive. 

• Tweet

[dockiks]

Hi,

How would you guys compare this with the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS...not looking at the price. Since we know that Canon's 17-55 IS is much expensive. 

@zoom:

As stated by Caterpillar:

"The 17-50 is a big improvement from the 28-75. But the range is limited and you can't go 35FF with this. But for a crop body, minus the not-so-fast and noisy AF, it is perfect and cheap compared to the 17-55 efs IS. But it is 1/3 cheaper, smaller, lighter."

As Caterpillar said, it's smaller (3.2 vs 4.4 inches )and lighter (434 vs 645 grams). Oh, and it's so hard NOT to look at the price since it's almost 1/3 the cost of the Canon (17K vs 44.5K [even higher at Canon retailers]).

Having said that, the build quality of the Canon looks better; my Tamron 17-50 looks a little "plasticky", and I don't care too much for the gold band on the zoom ring. I find it a little tacky, but that's just me  I haven't tried the Canon so I can't comment on IQ but local and foreign forums/fora are mostly praising this lens, some even saying its comparable to an L. It also has IS, which the Tamron doesn't. But in the same vein that Caterpillar said that at 75 mm, you can get camera shake with low light (even at 2.8 ), at 55 mm FL (and below), I would think IS isn't that critical a factor in getting sharp images. Unless the light is really bad and shutter speed goes way slow, or you've got shaky hands.

Before I got my Tamron, I researched the specs and cost of the various wide to mid zoom candidates(2.8 or 4), which also included the Canon 16-35L f/2.8, 17-40L f/4, Tokina 16-50 and the Sigma 18-50, both 2.8. I wanted something smaller and lighter than the EF-S 18-200 IS (my 450D kit lens), with good low light capability. So most of the candidates were readily eliminated because of my criteria. It also mattered that they were all much more expensive. In the end, I chose between the Tamron and the Sigma. I'm very happy with the Tamron. Sharp at 2.8, even more so if stopped down to 4 or 5.6. And it comes with a petal hood already. Some people might say that its the "poor" man's alternative to the EF-S 17-55. But a very good and competent alternative.

But if I didn't mind getting a bigger, heavier lens, and money was not an issue, I probably would have gotten the Canon 17-55 IS. So I guess you'll have to weigh these issues and make the choice. Hope this helps...

• Tweet

[soccerjoe5]

That Tamron has a good reputation. The sigma 18-50/2.8 HSM Macro is a great and sharp lens IF you get a copy with no focusing problems. Most people see the photos at 2.8 soft (so did I) but I found out it was backfocusing a bit. When corrected it was very sharp. It's VERY convenient to have a close focusing distance.

The Tokina 16-50 is lovely on the wide end. I had a Pentax 16-50 and I loved it. 16mm is very nice and wide and I didn't miss my UWA much.

• Tweet

[milesyoung]

@gat3keeper, thanks for posting that one! now im more inclined to get the 17-50

• Tweet