Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS ??

[Kelly Grannell]

Can't decide.

On one hand the price difference is $800
on the other hand Canon got faster focus and IS

very difficult decision.

anybody can help?

TIA

Kelly

 

[captaincrash]

Well...

... the Canon is a sophisticated design with 19 elements in 12 groups including three aspherical elements plus two UD (ultra-low dispersion) elements. As such I would expect it to do back flips through flaming hoops. But the f2.8 vignetting is significant at about 1EV across the entire zoom range - with the greatest error at 35mm. Frankly, this makes cropping wide open shots - or use of the full image at 2.8 somewhat questionable - unless you want the slight shadowing to emphasize you subject.

As for sharpness - it seems to dance at the extreme limit of resolution for a 1.6 crop 8MP sensor - so it seems good. It only dips into a faintly detactable range in the extreme corners when wide open at f2.8. Otherwise - it is sharp. The CA is well controlled below the "1 pixel barrier" so this implies the color accuracy should not be a huge issue.

The construction is polycarbonate - as a non L lense should be. And that is perhaps a consideration given the cost involved, eh?

Now on to general thinking... I am NOT a fan of the APS-C dedicated lenses. I suspect that you could do far better with a lense that has an unrestricted future of utility with your full frame bodies. Also, the 1.6 crop sensors only utilize the so called sweet centeroid of the image projected off a normal full frame lens. SO often the fall off in edge performance is not an issue! I really like that convenience and performance gain.

Aside from that - I have not found any useful critical reviews on the Tamron. I did HAVE a Tamron ... however it was an ambitious 18-200 super zoom. You probably read one of my other poostings describing the suspected mis-sync with the interface or EPROM programming of the lense. I read elsewhere on DP review and other sites where Tamron, TOkina and Sigma users have encountered wierd missed focusing events just like I experienced. By the same token I feely admit that the 18-200 Tamron that I had produced some eye poping sharp images too. The color however had me ocassionally cocking an eyebrow wondering what was off in the color balance.

If I find anything of interest to compare the Tamron with (IE - data on the Tamron) then I'll return to post more. My time is limited now as Ihave to run and take my daughter from school to gymnastics.

Cheers!

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Looking at the Vignetting table, it's essentially as bad as my Sigma 18-125 at f/3.5 and Sigma 17-70 at f/2.8. Maybe the technology is just not there yet to avoid that much vignetting at 17mm.

I hope when Photozone test the Tamron next week the results would be better, or at least the same.

 

[Anewman]

Just ask yourself how slow can you hand hold at 20mm, do you really think the IS would give you an additional 2 or 3 stops?

IMO IS gives a great deal more performance and value on the TELE end, and not so much of either on the wide side.

But I would pay a little extra for faster focus.

 

[captaincrash]

Kelly,

I would say the 18-125 is better across the aperature range at 35mm. So - at 35mm your Sigma is actually considered sort of tolerable at 0.39 EV drop-off at the edges. At 18mm it's not so hot at the wide end with an obvious 1.26 EV drop - and is almost tolerable at F5.6 with a -0.52 EV. And... at 70mm and 125 it is sort of OK at 5.6 but quite good at f8. Of course, this is just photozone and what their tests suggest. And ... there simply is nothing made (by Canon) that compares with te 18-125 range of t e Sigma. Plus, everyone's mileage will vary with their actual specimens (in thoery, eh?).

And as for the 17-70 ... yeah, the drop off at f2.8-3.5 seems like many would notice it. BUT ... compared to slower lenses that oast their fastest speed as f3.5... the 17-70 is a good performer with an edge at f4.0. IE in comparison to say a cheapie Canon 20-35. The next chart is from the 17-70 and the one below it is the Canon 20-35.

Sigma 17-70 V table

Canon 20-35 V table

At any rate... I am not a good source for an opinion with NO real hands on experience with these lenses. Myself I am currently in a "bottom fishing cycle" for equipment as opposed to being out to pay top dollar for the latest and greatest photographic toys. <I'm mildly annoyed with the rapid introduction of new models and subsequent depreciation in value on equipment> IE, my current idea of the way to go is the cheapest route to maximum practical performance. Even better if I can get models that are 1 or 2 generations out of date so depreciation can work IN my favor! So, for now I am using a 10D with a modest 6MP. As such, I am perfectly happy with 6MP for my purposes up to 12x18. Getting an ultra-sharp top drawer performing lense is not worth the money to me as sharpness beyond a certain point is probably BEYOND the ability of the 10D sensor to resolve - or at least that is how I understand it. However, I am trying to get lenses that have potential use with a larger sensor. So I am settled into a lowly 20-35 f3.5 and competant 70-300 IS f4-5.6. I was gonna get a 28-105 but I was reconsidering for a 24-85. I still have to squint at the various charts for each and decide ow they feel in real life at the local store before I make a final decision.

FOr that matter - anyone want to chip in an opinion of whether I should lean towards the 28-105 or 24-85 to fill the gaping hole from 35 to 70 in my humble kit. And, for that matter... I was also considering a gap filler with just a humble plastic fantastic 50mm f1.8. Except I read on fred-miranda about how this lense can litterally fall apart in your hands. That sort of has me mildly concerned if it is so fragile. I may need to get something a little tougher in a 50mm like the f1.8 Mk1 or step up to a 50mm f1.4 which does not seem worth the extra money for the 5-10% greater sharpness and half stop of speed IF it won't resolve on my 6MP sensor. Heck - at f1.8 this wouold be fast enough given that I can shoot at ISO 800 comfortably in most low light circumstances.

Yeah - the 24-85 has a CA issue at 24mm and 50mm and the 28-105 has an odd CA problem as the aperature gets smaller at 28mm! My solution to the performance compromises in the 24-85 and 28-105 is to add a 50mm prime. The cheapie f1.8 performs well from all angles at f2.8... while the f1.4 does OK at f1.8 and is excellent at f2.8. Well... if I just had the 50 prime then I would not be zooming in and out across the 35-70 gap (I'd constantly be walking closer or futher from my subjects to compose the image full frame) - and so the best approach while being realativly cost effective to me seems to be to try and get by on a 50mm f1.8 Mk 2 (or 1?) AND a 28-105 since I have difficulty seeing past the sharp CA issues in the 24-85... but I like the idea of having an extra 4mm of wide angle coverage with my 1.6 crop sensor. I could get 2 lenses for the cost of a single 50mm f1.4.

Now - if anyone differs in opinion or has a helpful remark - I would be appreciative too. If nothing less - I am simply confusing myself a bit with all this.

Cheers to all!

 

[boBQuincy]

Although Canon's 17-55 does not fare too well in tests it may be better than the tests indicate, as appears to be the case with their 17-85. This happens a lot with audio equipment where the tests simply do not reveal many of the important characteristics of the equipment. Not that the tests ar poorly done or unimportant, just that there is more to a lens' performance than test charts

It may be that Canon does not consider vignetting to be a big issue anymore since it is fairly easily corrected in post processing (btw, I do not agree with that idea).

Even with a possible 25% markup just for the "Canon" logo there is still a large price difference between the two lenses, and it seems unlikely that Canon put fancy glass elements in the lens just for bragging rights.

I am not a fan of third party lenses or much of any other third party equipment. I work for a major manufacturer and have examined many third party replacement parts for our equipment. Most are junk, few are very good, almost none meet all of the original specifications since we, like Canon, do not share those specifications with outside sources.

I have some experience with IS and consider it worthwhile. In my limited and completely unscientific tests it is good for at least two stops on my 24-105, at all focal lengths.

My opinion is if you have the $$$ go with the Canon lens. If not, go for the less expensive option (which I did with a Zenitar 16, and was pleasantly surprised with how good it is, optically at least).


boB

 

[captaincrash]

I added my remarks in RED below.

Although Canon's 17-55 does not fare too well in tests it may be better than the tests indicate, as appears to be the case with their 17-85. This happens a lot with audio equipment where the tests simply do not reveal many of the important characteristics of the equipment. Not that the tests ar poorly done or unimportant, just that there is more to a lens' performance than test charts

<In spite of my posting so many photozone charts - I do agree with Bob that the tests do not tell us EVERYTHING. They merely suggest an opinion. Several tests and sources - plus the comments accumulated at Fred Miranda and other similar reader opinion only sources - combined with PERSONAL OBSERVATION and HANDLING by respected associates, friends and YOURSELF in a local store should form a balanced initial impression . That was why I stated earlier that ...."I am not a good source for an opinion with NO real hands on experience with these lenses. ".... and that these were just results from ONLY one site ... photo zone>

It may be that Canon does not consider vignetting to be a big issue anymore since it is fairly easily corrected in post processing (btw, I do not agree with that idea).

Even with a possible 25% markup just for the "Canon" logo there is still a large price difference between the two lenses, and it seems unlikely that Canon put fancy glass elements in the lens just for bragging rights.

I am not a fan of third party lenses or much of any other third party equipment. I work for a major manufacturer and have examined many third party replacement parts for our equipment. Most are junk, few are very good, almost none meet all of the original specifications since we, like Canon, do not share those specifications with outside sources.

<I susected this would be obvious. When my Tamaron was NOT functioning / focusing properly I thought that this must be a design flaw due to lack of full operational interface data! Reverse engineering is NOT expected to be a perfect approach to duplicating products in this arena!>

I have some experience with IS and consider it worthwhile. In my limited and completely unscientific tests it is good for at least two stops on my 24-105, at all focal lengths.

<I agree that 2 stops is conservative and reasonable. Nikon's claims of up to 4 stops of useful correction seem... excessive. And I used to be considered a NIKON SNOB about 15-20 years ago!>

My opinion is if you have the $$$ go with the Canon lens. If not, go for the less expensive option (which I did with a Zenitar 16, and was pleasantly surprised with how good it is, optically at least).

<I'm gonna look into a ZENITAR NOW... see what you've started Bob? >


boB

Thanks for the response Bob. I should have pointed out my desire for un-biased opinion formation with greater emphasis. As it stands, I must look like a Photozone enthusiast or marketing rep for them! I am NOT... rather just another arm chair semi-pro enthusiast. I've made modest but reasonable $ from my photography... but not nearly as much as my regular occupation or investments. As such, I count myself as simply another energetic enthusiast!

 

[boBQuincy]

Btw, I am not really a pro since I rarely charge for photography services. I sometimes spend money like a pro ...
I handled a 5D at BestBuy today, big mistake. Now I *know* I need one! And a 30D too.

My opinions are probably as biased as any, of course I am always correct! I check the reviews on Photozone and believe they are accurate but I also check what Michael Reichmann says because I believe he is very knowledgeable and has not steered me wrong yet. Realistically, I doubt there are many truly bad lenses around today, and most newer ones (3rd party included) are probably in the "very good" category.

The Zenitar 16 is a nice little lens. Mine came in a box wrapped in brown paper and tied with string, with Russian writing all over the wrapping. One of my associates from the Ukraine translated it, nothing exciting except maybe to a student of the Ukrainian postal system.

The lens was loose on the mount but a shim (cut from a piece of laminating plastic) fixed that and the images from it are very sharp, all for about $100. Of course there's not a lot of electronics in the Zenitar to go wrong... more like backwards engineering instead of reverse engineering.
Buy one! Having lots of lenses is a good thing!

boB

 

[Kelly Grannell]

LOL boB! But if you buy a 5D then you'll need an external flash for your trips (which is the reason I don't use the 5D for other than in-studio sessions)

 

[captaincrash]

Btw, I am not really a pro since I rarely charge for photography services. I sometimes spend money like a pro ...
I handled a 5D at BestBuy today, big mistake. Now I *know* I need one! And a 30D too.

I have the same problem threatening when I handle new DSLRs a=or when I run into friends with new equipment. Heck - I might have been happy with the D-rebel if not for my friends who ran out to buy 350xt and 20D bodies. Plus one pal went and dropped probably 5K or so in one visit with a bunch of L lenses and the 20D. This represented a step up for him from a SD100! Of course, my reaction to all this was to go CHEAP and buy an old 10D and low end (but I maintain - decent) lenses. I went through the Tamron 18-200 and dumped the Canon 28-200. Now I have what I have and am almost satisfied. Until I see my pals with their toys. LOL!

My opinions are probably as biased as any, of course I am always correct! I check the reviews on Photozone and believe they are accurate but I also check what Michael Reichmann says because I believe he is very knowledgeable and has not steered me wrong yet. Realistically, I doubt there are many truly bad lenses around today, and most newer ones (3rd party included) are probably in the "very good" category.

I googled Michael Reichmann and see he has or is on Luminus landscape and he shows in a variety of other areas. May I enquire where you are finding the discussions of interest from Michael Reichmann? I'm just beginning to poke around the luminous landscape to see whats' there... seems rather interesting...

The Zenitar 16 is a nice little lens. Mine came in a box wrapped in brown paper and tied with string, with Russian writing all over the wrapping. One of my associates from the Ukraine translated it, nothing exciting except maybe to a student of the Ukrainian postal system.

The Zenitar is sort of interesting too. I've started looking into it a bit - and I've had some interest in a gizmo called a lens baby. That also sounds like fun.

The lens was loose on the mount but a shim (cut from a piece of laminating plastic) fixed that and the images from it are very sharp, all for about $100. Of course there's not a lot of electronics in the Zenitar to go wrong... more like backwards engineering instead of reverse engineering.
Buy one! Having lots of lenses is a good thing!

How .... charming. A shim you say? Well... so much for precision fit eh? But that does not put me off - as it intrigues me a little more.

boB

And Kelly -

I'll be hard pressed to admit it - but I am REALLY in total denial over wanting a 5D. I've seen the crop comparisons and they seem to be exquisite. Hope I didn't misspell that - but it looks really nice. I figure I will have to readjust all my thinking if I take a step in that direction - in terms of the likely minimum standards for lenses to acquire.

Have a great weekend folks!

 

[boBQuincy]

When I mention Michael Riechmann I am mainly referring to his website, The Luminous Landscape.
Michael takes a different approach to his reviews than most, focusing on the feel and handling of photo equipment instead of the specifications and resolution (usually). When combined with Steve's Digicams and DPReview, the total can give a really good impression of what a camera or lens might be like to work with.

Since we all have spending limits it's nice to check the reviews before I buy stuff.
The exception is my radio control N scale monorail, which at considerably more than the price of gold per equivalent weight, apparently has no spending limit.


boB