Tamron 17-50 or Canon 17-55 (f2.8)

Rojin

Rojin

Rojin

Soldato
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
6,992
Location
Gloucester UK
Right, I was set on buying the Tamron 17-50 after reading just about everything out there. However stock issues, Barclaycard fraud protection and other issues have delayed the purchase and I don't know if it's a sign?! I don't mind springing the extra for the Canon if it's significantly better in the AF area. This lens will be used a lot trying to capture my 1 year old so fast focus in low light will be essential. It would delay the purchase of a macro lens but I can live with that :)

Has anyone here got the Canon? The wider end I will be using for landscapes to see if I like it enough to buy an UWA in the future. Although I kinda hope this will be a good general purpose everyday lens. I have the 50mm f1.8 and a Sigma 70-200 f2.8. In addition to this zoom lens I will be looking to add a macro lens or maybe extension tubes and a 1.4 50mm... I also like the sound of the 85mm 1.8 as that is reported to have fast AF?

edit: I also meant to ask about the Canon 15-85, this seems to be getting a lot of love from some quarters...

another edit: or... Do I go for a 24-70 (or possibly 24-105) and then get an UWA?...

Images like this are making me consider the 17-55 despite the price tag: http://www.msbphoto.com/orangebeach/h35f6e8be#h35f6e8be
 
Last edited:
Not sure on the Canon mount version, but Nikon wise...The Tamron is a great lens, i have the non VC version. It's probably my favourite lens.

Got no complaints at all, build quality is good, focusing is instant and image quality is great. Mine was about £280 when i got it a while back

One of the occasions as a Nikon shooter I wouldn't ever consider the Nikon equivalent. Especially the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 as it's over ONE THOUSAND POUNDS and doesn't even have VR. Utter rip off. Image quality might be slightly better than the Tamron at 100% crops with a magnifying glass, but not over three times better. If i was going to spend that kind of money i'd get the 24-70.

Not sure how good the Canon 17-55 is, but i doubt it's worth the £300 quid extra over the Tamron VC version or £500 better than the non VC version.

As for VC/VR/IS...can't say i've ever wanted it on a lens that's only 55mm at the long end and goes to f/2.8
 
I don't mean to state the blindingly obvious but why would you consider the Canon if its £300-500 more? The difference is too close to call! I bet a million pounds (not that I have a million pounds) that if I was to take a series of shots with each of them you would not be able to distinctly choose them apart.

Surely buy a 17-50 Tamron (older version as latest one is getting bad reviews) and with the saving (if you have it) then get an ultra wide; Tokina 11-16 or similar? Although I would get the Tamron and then have a think as to whether you really want an ultrawide (I think the Tamron is wide enough) as personally my next lens will either be a 50mm 1.4 or a fisheye. (I don't use telephotos enough to warrant them into the equation). Equally, if shooting landscapes, I find a stitched pano shot to be considerably more professional than an ultra wide shot as it maintains a level of perspective/proportions. I think UW's are best suited to having fun with angles, so great for architecture etc, but then so is a fisheye.

Seriously; whilst we would all love Canon/Nikon only lenses; their price tags frequently do not justify the arguable improvement over the alternatives.
 
Last edited:
Mark A said:
When you say older version, do you mean the non VC one? Or are the newer lenses not as good as older ones?
Click to expand...

Well to my knowledge there have been 3 versions. The first one came out years ago which had no motor in the body. The second one came out a year or so ago which does have a motor, but does not have any VR/IS (cannot remember what Tamron call it), this is the one I have. There is a third revision which does have VR/IS equivalent which is the brand new one; this is getting bad reviews (look at Digital Camera magazine this month for a review). VR/IS is something that has not ever crossed my mind with regard to this lens. Whilst I can highly vouch for the 2nd revision Tamron which I have, the reviews equally speak highly of it.

Hope that helps :)
 
If you can afford it, I would go canon. For me it's always been a case of buying the best I can afford. Even if the IQ is only marginally better, it does have IS, top build quality and focus speed (I have no experience with the tamron so can't compare..). Also, the resale value will hold up pretty well, as with any top end canon.

Failing that, I would really consider a 24-105 f4L as well... You lose a stop but I don't see that as a problem for general day to day photography. It sits alongside a UWA nicely (I have this and the sigma 10-20 and they're a good pair) and will double up as a nice portrait lens at the long end, something which might be slightly lacking on the 17-55.
 
Stick with the non VC one, as it is sharper - noticeably. You don't really need VC/IS on a walk about low focal length lens like that anyway arguably. I would save the cash and get the Tamron. I personally went with the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 which is kind of the arch rival to it I guess. Since you have already decided on the Tamron I won't get into a debate on the merits of the Sigma over the Tamron here but if you want to we can.
I have also been looking to get a Canon 85mm as you talk of. I am in two minds as to get one. I keep talking myself out of it since on a crop body I really don't think in all honesty that I would get much use with it personally. It would be too long for indoor stuff, and a bit of a "nothing" lens outdoor apart from in specific situations. Again, just my personal uses. I think I am trying to talk myself into getting a more standard Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 which would be more useable for me, although I do love primes. Also been looking at getting a Canon 28/35mm or Sigma 35mm.
 
Stupot_ said:
If you can afford it, I would go canon. For me it's always been a case of buying the best I can afford. Even if the IQ is only marginally better, it does have IS, top build quality and focus speed (I have no experience with the tamron so can't compare..). Also, the resale value will hold up pretty well, as with any top end canon.
Click to expand...

I don't get your reasoning, other than throwing money away just so you own the most expensive and arguably better lens? The IQ argument does not factor for me as I would be amazed if the Canon could get better than my Tamron shots. Why you would spend 300-500 more on that basis is beyond me? You could own the Tamron and buy an ultra wide for the same money? IS does not factor in my experience as you don't need it on a wide angle lens of this focal range. Plus, build quality, focus speed and resale value only factor in the decision if one was better than the other which it is not.
 
martinturner said:
I don't mean to state the blindingly obvious but why would you consider the Canon if its £300-500 more? The difference is too close to call! I bet a million pounds (not that I have a million pounds) that if I was to take a series of shots with each of them you would not be able to distinctly choose them apart.

Surely buy a 17-50 Tamron (older version as latest one is getting bad reviews) and with the saving (if you have it) then get an ultra wide; Tokina 11-16 or similar? Although I would get the Tamron and then have a think as to whether you really want an ultrawide (I think the Tamron is wide enough) as personally my next lens will either be a 50mm 1.4 or a fisheye. (I don't use telephotos enough to warrant them into the equation). Equally, if shooting landscapes, I find a stitched pano shot to be considerably more professional than an ultra wide shot as it maintains a level of perspective/proportions. I think UW's are best suited to having fun with angles, so great for architecture etc, but then so is a fisheye.

Seriously; whilst we would all love Canon/Nikon only lenses; their price tags frequently do not justify the arguable improvement over the alternatives.
Click to expand...

All good points and this is the conclusion I came to when I first placed the order for the Tamron. I'm now second guessing myself!
 
martinturner said:
I don't get your reasoning, other than throwing money away just so you own the most expensive and arguably better lens?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying throw money away. But if you're in the position financially that you can spend your money on what is arguably the best standard zoom lens money can buy, then why not? Photography is an expensive hobby, the differences between the two lenses might be £300-400 but to most people spending the £350 on the Tamron is absurd enough as it is. They're both expensive, just one more so than the other;) If I could afford it then I know which one I would go for.

For all my lense purchases I've always known exactly which one I want to get. Most have been bought second hand and I've saved and saved until I can afford them. I now own a few L series lenses that are never going to leave my kit, but as I bought all of them wisely they are all worth more than what I paid. So I don't feel like I've thrown money away, because if I was ever in a tight situation I could sell something and gain it all back. (Interestingly the only lens I bought new is my 24-105, bought last year from Calumet for 580! It's now 970!:eek:)

So... To the OP, lens prices are ridiculous at the moment, have you looked secondhand?
 
I have looked second hand, but the prices are either the same or not that much lower than new prices from Onestop. Who are now out of stock with the canon mount for the Tamron 17-50 again!!! The Tamron is £250 new from there... The Canon is £700. I think I'm, settled back to the Tamron, plus an UWA and a macro.
 
Thanks martinturner, i think I'll go for the non VC and then that will leave some extra cash to pick up a Tamron 90mm macro :D.
 
Mark A said:
Thanks martinturner, i think I'll go for the non VC and then that will leave some extra cash to pick up a Tamron 90mm macro :D.
Click to expand...

Do you use Nikon? If so i'd spend the extra on the Nikon 85mm VR f/3.5 (the new Micro, not the older prime) or the 105mm VR f/2.8.

I have the Tamron and really don't like it. I bought this based on reviews and how impressed i was overall with the Tamron 17-50. Not impressed though. The only thing it's good for is manual focus macro.

Two things i dislike the most - 1) Build quality is shocking. The 17-50 is chunky and a solid weight, with a lovely rubber grip. Love the build quality of it. This looks and feels like it fell out of a cracker from the pound shop.

2) The AF wallows around like a drunk hippo on rollerskates and takes an absolute eon to focus. You could try and take a picture of an oil tanker turning round and this lens wouldn't be fast enough to focus. Worst of all, in telephoto modes sometimes it cant even focus at all. Tried it over Christmas and trying to use it as a telephoto and even on shots at 12ft away to infinity it simply failed to focus at all half the time.

It's on its way back to Tamron for checking, but if i had my choice again i'd get the 85mm Nikon. You wont miss f/2.8 since you can only use it at infinity really anyway, and the VR on the Nikon would compensate.
 
Equally, I have a Sigma 105mm 2.8; this can be had quite reasonably now and all my macro stuff has been taken using it. Would recommend it.

I am surprised you don't like the Tamron 90mm; it gets really good reviews and equally is favoured by many. You sure your's is not just a duff copy? I do like your analogies though ;-)
 
I've learn my lesson the hard (read expensive) way. Only Canon lenses from now on. I also prefer primes.

In your situation I'd buy a 24mm f/2.8 for walkabout (35mm equiv), then a Canon 10-22mm for landscapes at a later date.
 
Last edited:
topbanana said:
I've learn my lesson the hard (read expensive) way. Only Canon lenses from now on. I also prefer primes.

In your situation I'd buy a 24mm f/2.8 for walkabout (35mm equiv), then a Canon 10-22mm for landscapes at a later date.
Click to expand...

I also learnt my lesson the hard way too with third party glass.
:( I've been through 1 x Tamron 17-50mm and 2 x Sigma 18-50mm to get a good copy. The 3rd Sigma I currently have I haven't tested fully yet but I think I may just have a good copy finally. In the future I'll be going for the bang for buck Canon lenses - if there is such a thing.
I have owned many Canon lenses including L glass and never had a problem. The fist time I stray and get third party glass and it's an absolute disaster. However, many people are happy with the tamron 17-50mm. In fact, the majority of owners love it. For me, I dislike the fact it zoom rotates in the opposite direction to canon lenses and what I am used to. I dislike the noisy AF and the poor build quality, and also the lack of macro like on the Sigma 18-50mm which is really useful.
 
jaybee said:
Stick with the non VC one, as it is sharper - noticeably. You don't really need VC/IS on a walk about low focal length lens like that anyway arguably. I would save the cash and get the Tamron. I personally went with the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 which is kind of the arch rival to it I guess. Since you have already decided on the Tamron I won't get into a debate on the merits of the Sigma over the Tamron here but if you want to we can.
Click to expand...

Seeing as I can't get hold of a Tamron at the moment, sell me the Sigma... :)
 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx

The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Lens is very, very similar to the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens. These lenses are more similar than different. They are very similarly sized and shaped. They function very similarly.

The differences? The Sigma is less resistant to flare. The Sigma shows more CA. The Tamron is noticeably wider (17mm vs. 18mm - and even wider than the Canon with the same 17mm designation). The Tamron focuses faster, the Sigma focuses more quietly. The Tamron focuses much more accurately - My keeper rate is far higher with the Tamron. My Sigma has a weak left side - For sharpness, the Tamron beats the Sigma easily on the left side, but the Sigma is slightly better on the right. The Sigma rings rotate the Canon direction, the Tamron rings rotate the opposite direction. The Sigma is less expensive (but not by much). The Sigma's requires its lens hood to be removed to install/remove the lens cap - this is a pain - Plan to buy the Tamron cap if you purchase the Sigma lens.

My pick? I'd go with the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens over the Sigma.
Click to expand...

And look at comparisons at http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php
and www.photozone.de
 
Tammy 17-50 arrived today \o/

Current competition entry is shot with it. It's lookng good so far, quick test on a focus chart and all seems ok, colours and saturaion are good, I'm a happy chappy! Just need to get out and use it!

I see what they mean about noisy AF though. I can't say I see it as a problem though, but it does whirl like a drill!
 
I'm pretty sure I'll be getting a Tamron 17-50 at some point - I'm just trying to decide whether to pay the extra for VC. Has anyone found a review comparing these 2 lenses?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom