Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?message=29294090&changemo...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
canon 17-55 or tamron 17-50: Canon EOS 1000D / 450D - 300D Forum: Digital Photography Review
I want to replace the kitlens of my 450D for a f2.8 zoomlens.
I prefere the canon 17-55, but it is rather expensive.
Does anyone has experience with the tamron 17-50?
Do you have to calibrate this lens?
( the canon service centre had to calibrate, succesfully, my kitlens because of frontfocus, but it took a month to get it back).
70% of the pictures I make are pictures of landscapes and cities/buildings all over the world, the other 30% are pictures of animals (mostly my cats and dogs) and family members, mainly at parties.
I like to make large prints (A4) that are still very sharp.
Is the canon 17-55 worth twice the money that I have to pay for the tamron 17-50?
greetings, Henny
|
|
Typically you get what you pay for with glass, but as a Tamron 17-50 user I gotta say it's a great little lens and a hundred times better than the kit lens.
I bought it for my trip to Europe a couple months back to use in low light situations and the extra stops of light helped a lot.
Throughout the trip I took about 90% of the pictures with that lens and I was very very happy with it.
I got a used copy so I saved a little money there and it didn't need any calibrating.
Just be sure to test it out before you take it on a trip or anything.
|
|
The Canon lens is better in just about every area, particularly with less CA, better build quality, better contrast, faster, more accurate AF and IS.
But yes, it is expensive.
I would alternatively go for the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro, which is much better built than the Tamron, and has better optics (better contrast, doesnt have the CA problems the Tamron has, focusses closer).
|
|
The Tamron 17-50 is a great lens.
I find the 17mm on the Tamron takes in just a little more than the 17mm of the Canon.
The Canon has good CA control while the Tamron CA is good at 50mm but weak at 17mm.
AF is faster on the Canon due to the USM, but it will misfocus like the cheaper Tamron in low light.
Both the Tamron and Canon are sharp even at f/2.8.
I've pixel-peeped between the two and found it hard to tell the difference in real-world shooting.
If you have unsteady hands, or don't feel that you can shoot without IS, then the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS might be worth it to you since it is the only f/2.8 lens with IS in that focal range.
I suggest trying both out at the store.
Also checkout the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 Macro 72mm filter size version.
It isn't as wide as the Canon or Tamron, but is another budget-minded alternative to the Tamron.
Henny Quote: :
>
I want to replace the kitlens of my 450D for a f2.8 zoomlens.
I
> prefere the canon 17-55, but it is rather expensive.
Does anyone has
>
Experience with the tamron 17-50?
Do you have to calibrate this lens?
>
( the canon service centre had to calibrate, succesfully, my kitlens
>
Because of frontfocus, but it took a month to get it back).
70% of
> the pictures I make are pictures of landscapes and cities/buildings
>
All over the world, the other 30% are pictures of animals (mostly my
>
Cats and dogs) and family members, mainly at parties.
I like to make
>
Large prints (A4) that are still very sharp.
Is the canon 17-55 worth
>
Twice the money that I have to pay for the tamron 17-50?
>
Greetings, Henny
--
Peter Chung
|
|
Check out:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...
...0mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx
Tamron vs Sigma vs Canon review.
I have the Tamron and like it alot, just wish it was a bit longer sometimes.
--
|
|
+1 on the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 Macro.
I am really impressed with my copy.
|
|
Just a point of clarification: the Sigma tested here (as with many on-line reviews/comparisons) is the older NON-Macro version.
The newer Macro version performs considerably better and improved IQ than the older version, on par (some say better) than the Tamron.
In all honesty though, I don't think you will regret either the Sigma or the Tamron.
They are both great lenses at a fraction of the cost of the Canon equivalent.
|
|
I just love my Tamron.
It's great and the pictures are brilliant.
It's so unfair to compare it to the kit lens, because it's in a totally different league :)
I never had focusing problem.
I think is better than Canon, because:
- much smaller and lighter (82x74mm, 434g vs.
83x110mm, 645g): very important for an all-around lens like this
- smaller front lens, so you can save on the filters too
- Tamron 17mm is wider than Canon 17mm
- less vignetting at 17mm/wide open
- HALF the price :)
to be fair Canon also has advantages, but these are simply not justify the extremely high price:
- better CA
- probably faster and more silent focusing
- +5mm
- is, however I think it's not too important in this zoom range.
It's not a tele.
Check this link as well.
Full of lens reviews:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos
|
|
The Tamron is excellent, but the Canon is even better, has IS and USM.
It's worth the price if you can afford it.
If not, I'm sure the Tamron will do just fine, as I said, it's excellent.
There's not much more to say about these two great lenses
--
-Scott
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redteg94/
|
|
If you can afford the extra cash, the Canon will give you faster, quieter AF and the real benefits of IS.
If not, go for the Tamron, which will give you almost the same image quality for quite a bit less.
|
|
Take a look at this excellent review:
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/17-85compare/index.htm
I think the 17-55 is certainly worth the price difference compared to the Tamron 17-50.
But only you can decide if you think that too.
|
|
Thank you all for your information.
The test of the 3 canons, the tamron and the sigma has confinced me: I will buy the canon 17-55.
greetings, Henny
|
|
I agree, i take most of my work now with the tamron because of it's sharpness and flare-resistance.
Nice lens, very finicky with focus, especially manual focus.
--
Joergen Geerds
http://luminous-newyork.com
http://newyorkpanorama.com
|
|
I own both Canon 17-55 and Tamron 17-50.
IMHO Tamron is well suited for 450D based on size, weight, and IQ.
I find myself using Tamron 90% of the time.
Canon 17-55 is on my office camera - 40D
V
--
'When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk' Tuco
|
|
.... go for the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 Macro instead...
Its cheaper than the Canon and optically almost par with the Canon as well as being dust-proof.
The Sigma is better buillt than the Tamron and is my standard walkabout lens on my 30D.
Regards
Alexis
|
|
Searching on internet I noticed that sigma also has a 17-70 f2.8 lens.
What do you think about this lens?
Henny.
|
|
I owned this lens before swapping it for the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 as there are 2 issues with the 17-70 despite the "perfect" zoom range for a crop camera, namely:
a) The maximum aperture of 2.8 is only available for the range (appx) 17-22mm - in other words it is not a constant 2.8 across the entire range of 17-70mm.
b) Optically although good, it is no match to the 18-50.
This one, IMO is par with the much more expensive Canon offering for the same range.
Also it has macro to boot.
Alexis
|
|
If you have a extra money, go for Canon.
IS and USM is a big advantage.
But you have to buy the hood for $40.
--
Rod
40D, XSi cameras.
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS, Canon EF-S 18-55mm 5.6 IS and Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 MK (I).Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 SP and 90mm f/2.8 SP macro lenses.
|
|
|
|