canon 17-55mm is USM or Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens

[aungzawwin]

buying f2.8 lens means to me that i take low-light pics quite often.
IS does help when shutter speed goes down around 1/10 or 1/8(at least for my shaky hands).
Canon's USM focus speed is obviously faster than Tamron. and it is very silent.
and Tamron lens tend to get quite high CA.
my only gripe is Canon lens weighs much more than Tamron:sweat:

Tamron image quality is quite good for its price. in fact, only review sites do their job to find pros & cons of the products. in real world, unless we look at the EXIF and compare them side by side, it is hard to tell which pics have been taken with which lens.

my 2 cents: there are bad sample Tamron 17-50 lenses in the market with front-or-back focusing problem. i think it will take time to test b4 buying one.
if you are not tight on budget, go for Canon. i never regret(yet):lovegrin:

 

[antonioshabirto]

"Di II: Lenses are designed for exclusive use on digital cameras with smaller-size imagers and inherit all of the benefits of our Di products."
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/1750_diII_a016.asp

wow kindly help to elaborate... i dont really understand

 

[antonioshabirto]

Neither of these lenses will work on FF. that's a great reason to spend half the $$ on the Tamron

i struggled with this same decision and chose the Tamron. No regrets.

well at least it work on a 1D body

 

[antonioshabirto]

buying f2.8 lens means to me that i take low-light pics quite often.
IS does help when shutter speed goes down around 1/10 or 1/8(at least for my shaky hands).
Canon's USM focus speed is obviously faster than Tamron. and it is very silent.
and Tamron lens tend to get quite high CA.
my only gripe is Canon lens weighs much more than Tamron:sweat:

Tamron image quality is quite good for its price. in fact, only review sites do their job to find pros & cons of the products. in real world, unless we look at the EXIF and compare them side by side, it is hard to tell which pics have been taken with which lens.

my 2 cents: there are bad sample Tamron 17-50 lenses in the market with front-or-back focusing problem. i think it will take time to test b4 buying one.
if you are not tight on budget, go for Canon. i never regret(yet):lovegrin:

you are right ..... tamron QC is bad. but once u get the right one ....... its worth the money

 

[Anson]

my 2 cents: there are bad sample Tamron 17-50 lenses in the market with front-or-back focusing problem. i think it will take time to test b4 buying one.
if you are not tight on budget, go for Canon. i never regret(yet):lovegrin:

Can elaborate more about the front-or-back focusing problem? Thanks...

 

[evotin]

Wondering whether the IQ is significant comparing Canon 18-55mm IS kit lens?
Worth upgarding?

 

[m3lv1nh0]

Wondering whether the IQ is significant comparing Canon 18-55mm IS kit lens?
Worth upgarding?

It's worth it as the f2.8 is constant thruout it's focal length which means you can get better keep rates when shooting in low light condition compared to the kit lens.

Bottomline is : Got money get the Canon 17-55IS. On budget get the Tamron. Simple as that.

 

[leody1]

i heard sigma 18-50mm (macro version, not the 1st gen) is sharper than tamron.although its $100 more ex..a lot of sample pics in other website already. is that true?

 

[aungzawwin]

Can elaborate more about the front-or-back focusing problem? Thanks...

haven't tried Canon mount lens but it happened with my previous Nikon D200. it was very subtle so i could not notice it was focusing about 2-3" behind the subjects(when zoomed in at 50mm, about f4). i thought my pics were soft due to its nature(coz it was mentioned in the reviews that this lens is a little soft wide opened).
one day when i took pics of my kids sitting on a sofa with colorful patterns. they seemed out of focus so i checked carefully all those pics and found out that the lens eyed on the sofa rather than on my kid's face.
so i tested to place subjects in front of apparent backgrounds and shot. most of the time, the lens focused on background. and more obvious when zoomed in.
i downloaded the focus test chart and checked also. it's 90% confirmed that my lens was focusing a little behind than the cam told it to do so
i did not bother to calibrate or change the lens. sold my entire system and changed to Canon. coz i wanted to use this 17-55 IS lens:lovegrin:

 

[ggodetucsamoht]

i start the playing with 18-55mm, from there i move on to 17-50 tamron. right now i end up in 17-55 canon. why must i do that? because cost is a big factor to me then.

17-50 is a fantastic len and i am always recommend every one who have budget to go for it. but if you have a little more budget, you might want to get an "L lens without the red ring and letter L on the body", EFS17-55 f2.8 IS USM.

beside the soft noise, fast auto focus and the IS, the other features i think is quite similar to the tamron.

 

[chootx]

i just bought the tamron 17-50mm lens less than 5 hrs ago from Cathay photo..the lens feels solid but much heavier than my previous lens. (i upgraded from the economy 18-55mm Canon IS lens). When I was experimenting in my parents bedroom, snapping anything....the pictures looked darker overall and the tone was 'strange'. I was comparing with my Canon 18-55 stored in my 50D. It was much easier to use. But the quality of the photos (later I experimented in the kitchen under fluorescent lighting) is better. So I'm not sure, maybe I need to improve my skills or something. But in low light...it does have trouble focusing...but after i changed to the manual focus mode it helped. Since im a newbie, budget is a big factor. My rating is still out on this lens...i got to try some daytime shots and experiment further.... there was this thread about a guy who found the pictures he took with the 17-50 seemed darker but I cant find it anymore. Anyone knows?

 

[aungzawwin]

.... there was this thread about a guy who found the pictures he took with the 17-50 seemed darker but I cant find it anymore. Anyone knows?

there were some user reports about some samples of this lens..those tend to under-expose about 1/3 stop comparing to other lenses..especially the when flash is used. they assume it may be due to the nature of the lens' distance information feedback to the camera

 

[sayjaibow]

Like others have said if you have the money to burn then yes get the Canon. The IS will definitely help in low light handheld situations. More expensive doesn't always necessarily always better quality though and it depends on the copy of lens you get. Take a look at this comparison shots between the two lenses. In this comparison the Tamron looks clearly better.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=398&CameraComp=396&SampleComp=0&FLI=1&API=2

 

[electron]

I have the tamron and it is noticeably softer at 50mm, comparable to the 18-55 IS kit lens. It is also very soft in the corners (worse than kit lens) until stepped down quite a lot, especially the right side but much better on the left.
Use reviews as a general guide only. There are sample variations in all lenses, including the big name ones. The reviewer may have landed with an average, exceptionally good, or exceptionally bad copy of that lens.

My advice is to test both lenses yourself before getting either. Get a resolution chart (download and print) and shoot that at different apertures and focal lengths and also real world shots which invariably mean whatever is inside the shop. I use the displays but stand in one place and aim at the same spot, different focal lenghts and apertures each lens in turn. Write down the serial number (so you know which one you tested) and ask if they can hold it for you a day or two while you go home and scrutinise carefully the test shots for yourself. You may be surprised.
I only found out about my tamrons very bad right corner recently after doing the chart test. Never bothered before cos i thought all lenses of the same make were createl equal. They're not. Its only by pure luck that my copy doesnt have front/back focusing issues phew!

Just my 2c.

One more thing - IS is a godsend. It really does work and immensely useful in low light/slow shutter. Don't underestimate how useful it is like I did when i got the Tamron.

the other thing - f/2.8 is rather soft on my Tammy. Alternatively I hear the Canon 17-55 IS is sharp(er) wide open. So basically in low light i can't use the Tamron wide open which defeats the purpose of getting a f/2.8 (unless im really desperate and can live with some softness). Check yours before buying!

As someone has mentioned before, if you get the Canon, you wont have to think about 'what if' and know you're getting the best. As for me, while Im quite happy with the Tamron, Im looking to upgrade to the Canon soon.