Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC Mini Review

Last post I mentioned my somewhat brief experience with the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC lens (or the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di II VC LD IF lens to give it its full and proper title - whew!). Although I only had it for a few hours, and returned it due to some internal lens element issues (some fungal blooming was developing), it was long enough to take some test images and formulate some opinions of the lens in general. Opinions I'm going to share here... 😀

First, let me repeat that last sentence. 'Opinions' I'm going to share here. These are just my opinions, from my admittedly brief time with this lens. Of course a few hours with a lens isn't enough time to give an in-depth review (hence the 'mini review' in the title of this post). But it's also more than enough time for me to formulate an opinion on any piece of gear, one way or the other. Oh, and spoiler alert - I would have returned the lens even if it didn't have fungus issues.

Initially though, I have to admit to being impressed by the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC. At 570g it's a fairly hefty and substantial piece of kit, and certainly has a 'presence' to it. It looks the business, and the fit and finish is of a reasonably high quality. Nothing wobbled or creaked on my second-hand copy, even though it looked as if it had a reasonable amount of use.
There is a lot of plastic involved in the lenses construction, but it has a metal lens mount, and the plastic feels extremely dense and solid. As mentioned, it really does feel very substantial in the hand (and on the camera).

Unfortunately, this also happens to be my first grumble with this lens. I actually think it's a bit too hefty. Yes, seriously. Maybe I've been a bit spoilt using mirrorless over the last two years, but even the all-metal constructed M.Zuiko 12-40mm f2.8 Pro I was trading in for this lens only weighs 382g. I also think that some of the issue I had was because it seems to be a very back-heavy lens. A lot of the weight felt as if it was concentrated at the mount-end (rear), making it a very unbalanced lens. Attached to the Canon 50D body, the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC gave me the impression that it was placing a lot of strain on the cameras bayonet lens mount. I'm sure this isn't an issue - I haven't heard of any camera mounts being destroyed by the tamron. But it's certainly the feeling I got when I used this lens, and I can't say I've ever felt that way with a lens before - ever.

Pruning. Canon 50D with Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC. 1/320th @ f3.5, ISO 100. (at 17mm)

The other annoyance I noticed straight away with the lens was to do with the VC (vibration control). It makes a very audible 'clunk' sound as the vibration control kicks in - which is very annoying. The VC works - no doubt - it's just quite noisy, and quite noticeable while it's doing it! I don't know if this is the same with all Tamron's VC lenses, but it was certainly the case with this lens.

Tree - Opawa. 50D with Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC. 1/250th @ f3.5 (at 17mm)

And finally (I did say this was a 'mini' review), we come to IQ (image quality). It's ok. Really - just ok. Centrally it's sharp from f2.8, but the corners are very soft, especially at 17mm. It also exhibits quite a high level of purple fringing, and stopping down doesn't really help in this regard. Purple fringing was clearly evident in areas of high contrast, even at f5.6.

There's obvious distortion at the edges at 17mm (look at the lean on the house at the edge of the frame), but I won't hold that against the lens - it's fairly common for standard zooms at the wide angle end.

Finishing on a positive - vignetting seems well controlled at the wide angles, wide open, and autofocusing was quick and responsive (albeit with a little noise from the focusing motor).

No, as I said at the beginning, I didn't do exhaustive tests. Don't need to. Wandering around a park on a Monday morning, taking 'snaps' of anything that took my fancy, at apertures that I would normally shoot at, tells me everything I need to know about the lenses image quality and performance. And for me, it was a lens I struggled to like and get along with. So I went back that morning and exchanged it for the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8. And I have to say, the performance is night and day different.

Outside Springfield - Canterbury. Canon 50D with Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS. 1/60th @ f11, ISO 100

I prefer everything about the Sigma, when compared to the Tamron. Ironically, at 565g, it's only 5g lighter than the Tamron - but it feels a lot lighter because it's a better balanced lens. The front element is even bigger (77mm vs 72mm) which would normally suggest a lens would be heavier, but the Sigma is a fraction lighter despite the bigger front. In operation the Sigma is quieter and faster, and has a much better (i.e. silent) image stabilisation system (Sigma call it OS - optical stabilisation). It's also considered a sharper lens that the Tamron, and while I can't confirm this with a side-by-side comparison, images I've taken with the Sigma have been crazy, insanely sharp. On par with the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 I owned once upon a time ago. And corner sharpness on the Sigma does seem significantly better than on the Tamron.

I'm not a Sigma fanboy, or a Tamron hater. When I walked out of the camera store with the Tamron I was a very excited and happy camper - until I actually used it. The Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC lens I used was an unbalanced, noisy beast that I didn't get along with (lens element issues aside). Images from it were just so-so, and I would have a hard time recommending the lens to anyone.

Ironically, when I was returning the lens the next day, a woman was purchasing a brand new Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC over a Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 HSM OS. Apparently the Tamron was $100 cheaper. I would have paid the extra $100 bucks for the Sigma...