Tamron 17-50 2.8

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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

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

So I assmue the VC version gives OS?

Has anyone experience of this lens on the BMPCC?

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

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?

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

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.

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! Sorry about that folks, please ignore my previous posts.

Shawn