Tamron 17-50 2.8

The place for questions about shooting with Blackmagic Cameras.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Lee Mackreath

  • Posts: 273
  • Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:52 am

Tamron 17-50 2.8

PostTue Nov 12, 2013 10:21 am

Has anyone got this lens and used it on either the bmc or bmpcc with or without the metabones nikon to mft speedbooster?

It seems a cheap alternative to the sigma 18-35 1.8 and with the speedbooster woukd still be very fast.
Last edited by Lee Mackreath on Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

Florian Blang

  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:50 pm

Re: Tamron 17-50 2.8

PostTue Nov 12, 2013 10:26 am

Didn´t use it with the speed booster but I had it a while for my BMCC EF and soon realized that the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS is a lot better for my purposes cause it can get quite shaky at around 50mm without stabilizer!
Offline

Lee Mackreath

  • Posts: 273
  • Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:52 am

Re: Tamron 17-50 2.8

PostTue Nov 12, 2013 10:30 am

florianblang.com wrote:Didn´t use it with the speed booster but I had it a while for my BMCC EF and soon realized that the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS is a lot better for my purposes cause it can get quite shaky at around 50mm without stabilizer!


Understandable!.. But what about image quality in general?
Offline
User avatar

Dustin Svehlak

  • Posts: 319
  • Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:49 pm
  • Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Tamron 17-50 2.8

PostTue Nov 12, 2013 12:25 pm

I have it on my EF. This was my favorite lens on my 7D and while it looks good on the BMCC, the crop factor was so bad I ended up getting the Tokina 11-16mm for indoor shooting. I've also had some quality issues with the lens. It started giving me errors as a still lens on my 7D and occasionally the BMCC can't adjust the apertures even though you can see the adjustment in the F-Stop number and hear the lens changing something. I've sent the lens in for warranty service and the issues have intermittently returned.

I found a workaround is to bring an EOS camera to set and put the lens on there as this resets the aperture to where it works on the BMCC.

If you already have the lens, you'll be fine. If you don't, I would recommend something else, such as the Sigma options mentioned above.
www.voltaicvideo.com
www.vimeo.com/voltaicvideo
Offline
User avatar

MatsHelgesson

  • Posts: 134
  • Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 6:39 pm
  • Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: Tamron 17-50 2.8

PostTue Nov 12, 2013 12:40 pm

It's the workhorse lens on both my APS-C cameras and my BMCC EF when doing interviews, talking heads or concert filming. I use the non VC version and it works well when I'm shooting with a shoulder rig or on a tripod. For wider shots, I might put on a Tokina 11-16.

The sharpness is quite excellent at F/3.5 and upwards. At 2.8 it might get a bit soft at times but nothing that a little sharpening in post can't help.
Mats Helgesson
Cinematographer
Grandpa Electric

Blaine Russom

Re: Tamron 17-50 2.8

PostTue Nov 12, 2013 12:48 pm

I use this lens all the time (VC version) .. works great! No problems with it!
Offline

bhook

  • Posts: 1024
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 8:19 pm

Re: Tamron 17-50 2.8

PostTue Nov 12, 2013 12:53 pm

It's been my go2 lens for years...interviews and talking heads mostly. Non-VC model. It's been a really fine workhorse.
Offline

Lee Mackreath

  • Posts: 273
  • Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:52 am

Re: Tamron 17-50 2.8

PostTue Nov 12, 2013 1:34 pm

So I assmue the VC version gives OS?

Has anyone experience of this lens on the BMPCC?
Offline

Shawn Miller

  • Posts: 179
  • Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:34 pm

Re: Tamron 17-50 2.8

PostTue Nov 12, 2013 7:44 pm

Lee Mackreath wrote:Has anyone got this lens and used it on either the bmc or bmpcc with or without the metabones nikon to mft speedbooster?

It seems a cheap alternative to the sigma 18-35 1.8 and with the speedbooster woukd still be very fast.


I use both of these lenses on the AF100 and the BMCC, with and without the Metabones Speedbooster. Picture wise, you really have to be pixel peeping to see any difference. The build quality of the Sigma seems a bit better, but only slightly.

Shawn
Offline

Lee Mackreath

  • Posts: 273
  • Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:52 am

Re: Tamron 17-50 2.8

PostTue Nov 12, 2013 7:47 pm

This is in regards to comparing the sigma 18-35 1.8 and the tamron 17-50?.. You think honestly picture wise they are close?
Offline

Shawn Miller

  • Posts: 179
  • Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:34 pm

Re: Tamron 17-50 2.8

PostTue Nov 12, 2013 9:37 pm

Lee Mackreath wrote:This is in regards to comparing the sigma 18-35 1.8 and the tamron 17-50?.. You think honestly picture wise they are close?


Yes, as I said, you have to be pixel peeping to tell the difference. Matching shots between the two lenses is a non-issue. Have you had a different experience?

Shawn
Offline

Lee Mackreath

  • Posts: 273
  • Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:52 am

Re: Tamron 17-50 2.8

PostTue Nov 12, 2013 9:42 pm

Shawn Miller wrote:
Lee Mackreath wrote:This is in regards to comparing the sigma 18-35 1.8 and the tamron 17-50?.. You think honestly picture wise they are close?


Yes, as I said, you have to be pixel peeping to tell the difference. Matching shots between the two lenses is a non-issue. Have you had a different experience?

Shawn


No not at all have no experience of either but welcome the feedback from those that have! The tamron 17-50 2.8 with speedbooster works out at around £400 less than the sigma 18-35 1.8 so I thought the differences between the two would be obvious? The tamron in my opinion would be plenty fast at 2.0 with the speedbooster and covers a wider focal range than the sigma. The sigma at 1.2 with the speedbooster is amazingly fast but probably unusable in most cases cause of the thin focus plane.
Offline

Shawn Miller

  • Posts: 179
  • Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:34 pm

Re: Tamron 17-50 2.8

PostTue Nov 12, 2013 9:53 pm

Lee Mackreath wrote:
Shawn Miller wrote:
Lee Mackreath wrote:This is in regards to comparing the sigma 18-35 1.8 and the tamron 17-50?.. You think honestly picture wise they are close?


Yes, as I said, you have to be pixel peeping to tell the difference. Matching shots between the two lenses is a non-issue. Have you had a different experience?

Shawn


No not at all have no experience of either but welcome the feedback from those that have! The tamron 17-50 2.8 with speedbooster works out at around £400 less than the sigma 18-35 1.8 so I thought the differences between the two would be obvious? The tamron in my opinion would be plenty fast at 2.0 with the speedbooster and covers a wider focal range than the sigma. The sigma at 1.2 with the speedbooster is amazingly fast but probably unusable in most cases cause of the thin focus plane.



I don't doubt that the Sigma is a better lens for stills... but we just haven't seen much of a difference on the AF100 or the BMCC. Maybe I should try it on an actual stills camera. :-)

EDIT - A correction and a DEEP apology! I was referring to Sigma's 17-50! I haven't used the 18-35... I seriously misread the subject line! :shock: Sorry about that folks, please ignore my previous posts. :-)

Shawn

Return to Cinematography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Andrew Lucas and 159 guests