Tamron 17-50mm Reliability?
Posted on: Tue, 04/15/2008 - 4:18am
Offline
Tamron 17-50mm Reliability?
I was about to close the deal on a new A300 outfit, including the Tamron 17-50. I got a lot of good feedback on that lens and was ready to let go of my
irrational attachment to the Sony/Zeiss 16-80mm (I'd played with it for about a half hour in a local Sony store). Then a couple of posters in a DP Review forum
noted problems they'd had with the lens (one returned two of them). I've heard almost only good things about the optics, speed, etc. but now have a question about quality control/reliability.
Have any of you had or heard about problem with quality control from Tamron or, in particular, this lens?
Is there any reason to think Sony lenses, and especially the Sony/Zeiss lens, will be any more reliable re quality control?
I'm aware this comes up regularly re many lenses (a fine new Pentax lens has been criticized for that reason...justifiably or unjustifiably)
Since I'm also weighing the Sony 55-200 vs a Tamron 70-300, the question pertains to that decision as well.
Any info you have, from direct experience or other user reports, appreciated.
Mark
__________________
Mark
Well I have the tamron 17-50 and the CZ 16-80... I have them sitting here both in front of me in fact :-D
All I can comment is personally I've had no issues at all with the Tammy and though I take really good care of my gear, I'm probably using it in more of a heavy duty fashion than many.
I mostly photograph when out cycling, running or hiking. Which means that my A700 is shoved into the bottom of my camelback inside a big zip lock bag. I don't give it any extra padding beyond what the pack provides. So it's spent quite a few hours getting bounced all over the place back there while riding and running off road...
But if there is some reliability issue that might not be the type of usage that would expose it I guess.
On a somewhat related note, I think the 17-50 is built better than the CZ haha, at least what I consider built well. When you grab the CZ though it's beefy it has its share of play and slop - like in the focus ring. When you use the zoom ring it doesn't extend/retract as smoothly as the Tamron, it's a bit tight. It seems cheaper on the outside, but more expensive on the inside.
Tamron uses more plastic but to me in a good way. Focus ring is very smooth and precise, easier to dial in the focus. Also has a nice big beefy zoom ring I like the zoom action better than the CZ.
Don't know if any of that helps, just my opinion, others may feel 180 degrees different about the two.
Eric
-AlphaMountWorld Chef
Hi Eric,
I was wondering if you could help me with this:
How would you compare the colours of the Tamron 17-50, with those of the CZ 16-80? Since you're one of the few people I know has both, I hope you don't mind me asking if you'd be willing to take a few pictures of really colourful setting (flowers, landscapes, what have you) with both, and compare. Maybe, you could even share some pics. If you have the time, of course.
Thanks!
Carlos.
No problem for 16-80 17-50 colors Carlos
Be happy to put some stuff up. I love those two lenses so sounds fun. I have a greta macbeth color chart also. So while I'm not currently setup to take a lab condition type photograph, I might throw in some photos of it just for fun. We also have the Sigma 18-50 which I know Carl liked the colors on a lot.
Eric
-AlphaMountWorld Chef
Thanks Eric! That'd great.