Tamron 17-50 Buying Advice

eswank

So a brand new Tamron 17-50 non-VC BIM on Amazon is $459 plus $25 rebate. But then I came across the same model on eBay sold by BeachCamera as a Tamron refurbished model for $279 but it's AS-IS with no return. The rebate ends at the end of August for the brand new one but I'm not too sure which one to go with? Any help with this one?

ziggy53

First, I would only consider a new lens from B&H or Adorama directly. (I am presuming a Nikon mount.)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/550954-REG/Tamron_AF016NII_700_17_50mm_f_2_8_XR_Di_II.html

http://www.adorama.com/TM1750NKAF.html

Buying from an authorized Tamron dealer gains you a 6-year warranty on new lenses. (Not all Amamzon sellers are authorized dealers but B&H and Adorama are.)

The "refurbished" lens will not come with much warranty at all and, unless it specifically states that it was refurbished by Tamron, it will not be supported by the manufacturer at all. You must consider it a used lens since it has no return privilege.

If you want to consider a used lens, I highly recommend buying from a dealer "with" return privileges. B&H and Adorama sell used lenses and do have return privileges as does KEH.com.

ImageX Photography

I would recommend purchasing from a Tamron dealer as well. You never know what your getting otherwise. I have the 17-50 VC version and it's a great lens for the money. Razor sharp and contrasty.

paddler4

"as is" is a warning, IMHO. Usually, it means no returns, and it is there for a reason. I wouldn't buy it.

Alex_

Lenses are your life-long friends if you look after them. My dad even has ones dating back well over 30years and although without fancy ultrasonic focus motors or vibration reduction, are still amazing. That's why I always recommend buy it new where you can. Skimp on other stuff - not lenses. I've shot with the 17-50 and it's actually quite amazing for it's price.

earthguy000

ImageX Photography wrote: »

I would recommend purchasing from a Tamron dealer as well. You never know what your getting otherwise. I have the 17-50 VC version and it's a great lens for the money. Razor sharp and contrasty.

I concur with imagex. This is one hellofalens for FANTASTIC low light shooting and overall IQ, CA, Bokeh and sharpness to boot. For half the price of a Nikon 17-55mm F2.8!

I know I had both!

I am NOT the only person to say this. I have read weeks worth of threads on this lens prior to purchasing and over 95% agree based on price, overall performance and image quality it CAN'T BE BEAT.

No mere mortal will regret purchasing this lens.

Molotov Everything

earthguy000 wrote: »

I concur with imagex. This is one hellofalens for FANTASTIC low light shooting and overall IQ, CA, Bokeh and sharpness to boot. For half the price of a Nikon 17-55mm F2.8!

I know I had both!

I am NOT the only person to say this. I have read weeks worth of threads on this lens prior to purchasing and over 95% agree based on price, overall performance and image quality it CAN'T BE BEAT.

No mere mortal will regret purchasing this lens.

Funny story, my friend bought this tammy brand new, then after a few months decided to buy the canon version and is now selling the tammy. Of course, his reasoning for wanting the canon in the first place was he "feels like the canon would be faster" and "it's bigger." But also, I've seen him post more photos of his camera gear than photos he's taken with his gear so....

eswank

So which one should I get? VC or Non-VC? I've read a lot about the non-VC model being a lot sharper than it's VC brother. Thanks!

mr peas

I picked up a Tamron 17-50mm non-VC a while ago in Canon-mount for around $350 new, I think its definitely worth it. There's links online that compare differences between the VC and non-VC models. I'll do you a favor by making one for you: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Product-Images.aspx?Lens=661&LensComp=400&LensComp2=679 **oops I can't find the lens image samples tool, but if you google it I'm sure you can find it.

Personally, I think the non-VC model is more than sufficient. @ f/3.2 and up, the lens is grade-AA+ sharp, by then I'd say its professional grade. @ f/2.8, chances are the only reason it goes soft is due to the user. In comparison to the Canon 17-55 or Nikon equivalent, I think the price difference itself should be enough for you to pull the trigger. With that $400-600 savings, you can buy another more expensive lens!

Here's some samples I took when I first purchased mine:

f2.8: 50mm


f3.5: 50mm


f8.0: 50mm


f/2.8 @ 17mm (wide-angle):


** all shot handheld, non-VC model.

That should help with any buyer's remorse you think you'll have. Enjoy.

eswank

Thanks for the pictures mr peas. I have till the end of the month to buy the Tamron lens from Amazon with a rebate so I think that's what I'll do. I'll probably opt for the non-vc model.

ImageX Photography

eswank wrote: »

So which one should I get? VC or Non-VC? I've read a lot about the non-VC model being a lot sharper than it's VC brother. Thanks!

I have the VC version and it is RAZOR sharp. It's the better and more versatile lens and can things that the non VC version cannot. One of the best values out of all of my many lenses.