As the title of this review suggests, I could determine strengths and weaknesses. The latter fell to me to come with increasing experience and more possibilities comparisons, more and more eye-catching. Comparing the Tamron for example with the 18-55 IS, especially falls on the higher light intensity. Besides being able to choose the depth of field smaller, there are many buyers / interior certainly apart to be able to make better pictures indoors is not for nothing this lens gets in relevant forums always a recommendation as Party Lens for Crop cameras (1100D, 550D , 600D, 650D, 700D, 60D, 70D, etc.). All I can say: This recommendation is not unfounded. The aperture of 2.8 enables very common to have the flash just once in his pocket. Then there is the really great image stabilizer. This clicks into place and the lens begins to hum. If you look through the viewfinder, it looks as though the picture stapled. Motion blur can thus naturally not avoid, but the 2.8-helping iris to come closer to this goal. Overall, I rate the image stabilization better than the Canon 18-55mm. In my opinion, this represents a good buying argument constitutes But note ever:. An image stabilizer is only in the rarest of cases the cure!
But where there is light, is mostly shade. Who now expects (again Beginners: F / 2.8) at open aperture to get tack-sharp photos, I have to slow down a bit, unfortunately. The edge regions of the image are quite blurred and the center receives a good amount of blur. Well this is particularly evident in fine structures such as hair or skin. With more closed aperture the sharpness is naturally getting better, but its peak reached the Tamron until approximately between panel 4 and 5.6, whereby the benefit of 2.8er shutter relativized (especially indoors) quickly, if you want to have really sharp images , Nevertheless, I see the Tamron clear advantage over the Canon 18-55mm, because the aperture range of the Canon begins at 3.5 (18mm) or 5.6 (55mm) and it still does not provide a better picture. This again outclassed the Canon, in my opinion, for use indoors (without flash) in general.
But to score the white Tamron using an (external) flash unit. Dimmed to around the 5.6 it starts exploit its strengths, what the image quality clearly visible benefits, even without Pixel Peeping (For beginners: meticulous check for errors at the pixel level and comparing photos in eg Adobe Lightroom).
Even in daylight no maximum aperture should be selected in general wherever possible. Light dimmed the results are also fine. Weakens the kit lens often in heavily overcast sky, you can take the Tamron, however, still along well. For static subjects the image stabilizer helps immensely with moving subjects you can sometimes choose a lower f-stop (or increase the ISO value). When the focal length available this proved to be unproblematic.
Direct comparisons between the Tamron and the kit lens (and here we come to the pixel-peeping) showed me the part of Tamron's a total of slightly better picture quality than most of the aperture area. What I also noticed is that the Tamron at switched off stabilizer becomes more acute, and not only on a tripod! So Shoot out at relatively good light, you are well advised by temporarily turning off the stabilizer.
With respect to the occurring aberrations as chromatic aberrations, distortion and vignetting the Tamron is a somewhat mixed picture. Distortions occur relatively strong at both the upper and lower end of the focal length range on (for beginners: If you up close or far away zooms). Chromatic aberrations are also visible, but the vignetting is very limited. Who is reasonably familiar with the relevant image processing software, however, need not worry. In particular, Adobe Lightroom 4/5 eradicates these errors quickly and easily, since a matching profile is already available for this lens.
When the focus or when autofocus drive the opinions go here so often but strongly apart. I am aware a number here into midfield. By growing up solid sums it up quite well. This is not a USM (ultrasonic motor)! A raging, 99% always the mark taken Autofocus one can please do not expect And certainly not in low light conditions (eg celebrations / parties). The motor moves the mechanics audible. Whether one considers this as disturbing, probably lies in the subjective sense, I feel it is bearable. Compared to many lenses from the lower price category but the focus is working with the Tamron 17-50 VC significantly more accurate and the focal point is found quickly, which is partly due to the relatively large maximum aperture. Especially in low light, this is a clear advantage over a kit lens.
After the image quality and the autofocus potential we come to service / mechanics. Here I have just caught me that I have turned up his nose. The zoom wheel is pretty sluggish, which I do not particularly appreciate. While this has the advantage that the tube during transport not get sliding forward, but it takes more force to move it (compared to higher-quality lenses). This makes a quick, as well as precise adjustment of the zoom more difficult (but not impossible). Of course you need not be Hercules, but I find it unpleasant. However, for manual focus, I want to say that I consider this to little use. You have the (included! Juhu!) Lens hood attached, the manual focus designed as fiddly. But even without this is not a pleasure.
For whom the Tamron 17-50mm VC would therefore recommend?
Beginners:
Have you just bought your Canon EOS (Crop!) Along with a kit lens? Then use this quiet until next time. Familiarize yourself with the camera and the lens, you study hard, the basics of photography and make first experiences. You need not necessarily a 350-Euro-lens. Later, you can use the kit lens still sell.
Have you just bought a Canon-only crop camera without (standard) lens? Then it depends on your application. Photograph primarily outdoors and not indoors? Then the Canon 18-55mm (II) could be a good and much cheaper alternative.
Do you want but mostly at the next wedding, Aunt Erna's birthday, so take pictures, the Tamron could be the better alternative. Ask yourself, however, please make sure you this is well worth the extra charge! Another question that you should ask yourself is whether you really need an image stabilizer. Please note that you will only gain in principle an advantage thereby when photographing subjects that do not move! Because if a subject is moving, the stabilizer to the resulting uncertainty is powerless here! The background remains as sharp as ever, but the real motive is blurred. When moving the bulk of your motives, you should take a look at the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 XR Di II LD ASL throw. Although this has no stabilizer, it however you buy yourself a bit more sharpness.
Ascending amateur photographers:
Are you your kit lens outgrown? Restricts this box, and you want better options indoors? Then this lens is perhaps worth considering. It is also a question of budget. For even better alternatives (Canon 17-55 IS USM 2.8 or Canon 17-40 4L USM) cost about twice, but offer some amenities such as USM, etc. As is also the point Beginners: Are you concerned about whether a need image stabilization! Furthermore, I recommend to expressly every now take a flash when taking pictures indoors use a smaller aperture (see above).
Experienced photographers:
If you want to search a relatively favorable standard lens for your (backup) Crop-camera and you do not purchase higher-priced lens for this purpose, the Tamron might be sufficient. Whether you need a stabilizer or not, you will surely know. Again, I recommend again, in indoor settings, the occasional use of an external flash if you can not take pictures without open aperture. For simple snapshots can be from time to time but resort to open aperture. However, the lens is benefiting significantly from Fokussierhilfslicht an external flash unit. But if you are accustomed to a USM, you are those who miss despite focus quality at the top of the regular drives, fast.
Professional photographers:
No, not really suitable.
Personal conclusion:
I personally own the Tamron still and use it every now and then on my backup camera (550D), and in particular private celebrations etc. for snapshots, where the quality is secondary. If it heißhergeht, what could happen and then the failure of a L-lens would be considerably more painful. In addition to me is my Canon 24-105mm L on the 550D (by the crop factor) far too long with respect to the effective focal length.
In the area of cheaper lenses, the Tamron but really not bad beats. But what I sorely miss is a USM drive. Who this is usual, should really be in the event of a new acquisition fingers from Tamron, because here between my opinion occur after worlds and you will not have long pleasure of usage. After all, what brings the most amazing optics when an autofocus makes a spanner in the works? USM lenses are working faster and more reliably. Would I buy the Tamron again? I think so. In this price range alternatives are scarce and the suitability as a cheap, robust party lens justifies for me even today an acquisition. My tip to Tamron: With USM at the same price it clears the market :)
Note:
Whoever missed the comparison with L lenses, which I want to say that I would like to go out of the way an apples to oranges comparison, because I simply think it is not appropriate for a 350 with a 700-up lens to Compare. A comparison between a Porsche and a Twingo is finally questionable and profiling I do not need me too :)
Who misses comparisons to counterpart from Sigma, which I regret to say that I made a few and also not very positive experience with Sigma lenses. Converse experiences have certainly made several Sigma users. Be it from me but Remote to make a general judgment about Sigma lenses. Since I obviously had bad luck with the series variance, go my experience with this but to zero.
In this review, I have tried my objective (Attention, pun!) To express impression is what emerged over time. I hope you enjoyed my review and maybe this will be regarded by them as helpful. Should be the case, I would be glad about a "Yes, this review was helpful" very.
