For people who is deciding between Tamron 17-50, 17-50 VC & Canon 17-55mm IS USM F2.8
- Thread starter soons
- Start date
wahaha i have non VC tammy but i do not wanna upgrade to 17-55mm but instead hoping there is a IS version of EF24-70mm f/2.8L USM hehe 
or maybe EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM
as a owner of Tammy, i can say the landscape pic from this very lens is excellent for it class. no need VC.
for low light condition, i just use a flash
or maybe EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM
as a owner of Tammy, i can say the landscape pic from this very lens is excellent for it class. no need VC.
for low light condition, i just use a flash
takengo2003
Deregistered
i kind of like the tamron 17-50mm non VC, but i cannot really handheld properly at low shutter speed in low light, hence leading to blur images. i ditch my kit lens 18-55mm IS for tamron 17-50mm non VC and find that i really need IS.
OT abit, is Canon 18-55mm IS better than Canon 18-200mm IS in terms of IQ at range 18 to 55mm.
OT abit, is Canon 18-55mm IS better than Canon 18-200mm IS in terms of IQ at range 18 to 55mm.
Last edited:
That is the same problem I faced before I upgraded to Canon 17-55mm IS USM. I am happily shooting at SS below 1/30sec at 55mm focal length.
As for 18-200mm, my experience is that 18-200mm quality is very good, but loose out greatly in the centre wide open at 18mm, which is normal for SuperZoom. But for a 11x zoom lens, Canon 18-200mm is considered very very good. 18-55mm IS is better in optical quality.
takengo2003
Deregistered
how about IQ for this 2 canon lens at 24mm? 18-55mm IS still better?
So long the image looks ok, you shouldn't be worry about IQ too much. However, superzooms will always loose out in corner sharpness. Google reviews and you will see tons of reviews on 18-55mm IS as well as 18-200mm IS.
takengo2003
Deregistered
thanks, i am actually thinking of the following in the BNS forum.
combo1: Canon 17-55mm F2.8 IS around $1300
combo2: Sigma 30mm F1.4 ($600) + Canon 18-200mm IS (750) Total $1350.
combo3: Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 non VC ($500) + Canon 18-200mm IS (750) Total $1250
combo 4: Sigma 30mm F1.4($600) + Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 non VC ($500) Total $1100
I normally use in outdoor shooting with occasionally some indoor shooting like food photgraphy etc. Is combo 2 more suitable for me,
or is Canon 17-55mm f2.8 good enough for indoor food photgraphy since it has IS. or take the cheapest combo 4 and improve my handheld skills(army shooting skills).
Last edited:
take combo 4, sigma 30mm F1.4 will take care of the indoor low light, and tamron 17-50mm will give you good image quality outdoor. With tamron 17-50mm shooting outdoor which is brighter and hence faster shutter speed, you will not have to worry about hand shake.
roaringflamer
Member
so honestly to ask those who have used both the vc and non vc versions of the lens. is it really worth paying 300-400 more for the vc?
For me. its a straight yes but that depends on why you want this lens. This lens is not fast enough for motion freezing at low light condition (I think if wanna freeze motion in low light, really need flash). For handheld under low light conditions for static objects, you'll not regret it. Period. Those that claims don need VC/VR etc for such a short range usually preach by using a tripod or flash at night. Those are fine advises but there are times you can't use either of them.
If you intend to get the 17-50 vc or non vc brand new, go to any of the more popular shops and tell them you deciding btw then two and ask to try them. Go handheld at 1/10 with both for around 10 shots each and you'll know what I mean. Its sooo good for me I sold my prime 35mm because I truly do not need it anymore with this lens around.
These are just my opinions, take it with a grain of salt and like I said, work out what you are looking for 1st and then go to the shops to test them if you really have intention to buy them.
Reposted what someone reviewed regarding the comparison between 17-55 and two "L" lens, 24-70L and 24-105L.
It is in this format: 1st place / 2nd place / 3rd place
Build Quality:
24-70 / 24-105 / 17-55
The 17-55 doesn't feel super cheap like the 18-55 or 50 1.8, but it definitely isn't as nice as the L's. The 24-105 feels solid, but the 24-70 feels like a tank... like you can almost use it as a car bumper.
Image quality:
17-55 / 24-70 / 24-105
The 17-55 is sharp in the centre through to the corners, at ALL apertures and at ALL focal lengths. There is NO optical weak spot on this lens in terms of sharpness. IT does flare more readily but it's easy to control, and even fun to use artisitcally. I find the other lenses show weaker sharpness at 24mm, and the 24-105 is weaker at 105mm. The 17-55 yields slightly cooler images. But in all honestly, ALL of the lenses deliver some stellar image quality. It should be the least of your concerns when choosing one of these lenses. There are some who say the bokeh isn't fantastic on the 24-105, to which I would agree, but it isn't absolutely beautiful on the other lenses either. On a non-bokeh friendly scene with lots of high contrast lines and jagged edges that are not TOO far off the DOF, none of them seem too particularly outstanding in comparison to good primes.
Useful Range on a 1.6 crop for GENERAL shooting:
17-55 / 24-105 / 24-70
Well this is obvious because only one was actually MADE for 1.6 crop as a no-compromise solution. 24mm on a 1.6 crop feels restrictive for indoor shooting, unless you are in an open concept mansion and have tons of room to back up. It loses out on the long end, but I find the 17-20 range very critical and used VERY often. In other words, I find I'm changing lenses a LOT more with a 10-22/24-70 combo over a 17-55/70-200 combo. I personally do not enjoy making many lens changes... it's cumbersome and annoying, and I always seem to miss great shots when fumbling with lens changes. (I wish I had 3 hands)
Flexibility/versatility for GENERAL shooting
17-55 / 24-105 and 24-70
With 2.8 aperture and IS, it's ready for you in broad daylight, or the middle of the night. The 24-105 is slower but with IS can get you by in a pinch in the dark. The 24-70 is faster, but when it's really dark, it's really hard to get a 1/60 shutter speed without a tripod. But it also has an easier time focusing than the 24-105 in the dark. It's really a toss up for second between the 24-105 and 24-70 on this one, but the 17-55 is certainly on top. There is no other lens like it. Many people say you don't NEED IS at short focal lengths. Well, those people have likely never taken beautifully sharp 55mm shots handheld at 1/4 shutter, without leaning on anything. As a note, ALL of them provide nice portrait ability.
Quality Control:
24-105 / 24-70 / 17-55
Though plagued with a recall in the beginning, the 24-105 currently seems to have the lowest number of complainers, myself included. The 24-70 in the pro world is often hated for it's inaccurate focusing at the wide end. If you can get a good one then you're set. But there seems to be a significant number of bad ones. (Though certainly not in the majority I assume) Test it's focus accuracy at 24mm. Many reported the same issue... backfocusing at 24mm, which gradually improves through the focal range. By the time you get to 70mm, focus is usually spot on. So test that wide end!
The 17-55 has a weak IS motor and dies after hard use. You have to use it ONLY when needed, and it should last forever. Overuse it and it'll break. I was the first on POTN to report this back in 2006. Many identical cases have popped up since then. I have found a rather consistent way to tell if it's on the way out. Half-press the shutter so IS is activated, and slowly zoom from 17 to 55. If it's starting the dying process, you'll likely see a jump in the viewfinder between 28 and 35mm. If it isn't, then you're good. It's been mostly pros who've subjected the lens to rigorous use that have failed 17-55 IS motors, so the casual shooter may not need to worry. In any case, I suggest any 17-55 user ONLY turn on IS when you actually need it. So in other words, shooting under 1/50 with NO flash and no tripod.
Another issue with the 17-55 is dust. This can be avoided by using a UV or clear filter and threading it quite snugly. I believe it collects dust through the space between the front element and the body. If you put your hand infront of the front element and zoom back and forth, you can feel lots of air getting blown out and sucked in. Putting a filter on there really snug will prevent it from sucking dust through there. I am assuming that it now sucks air through somewhere else that may be filtered with felt or something because I am getting no dust.
Size/weight:
17-55 and 24-105 / 24-70
Both the 17-55 and 24-105 tied for this as they are almost the exact same weight and size. They are pleasant to use. The 24-70 is huge and heavy. Some people say only a wimp would complain about the 24-70 weight. Well, I challenge those tough guys to hold up a 30D/24-70/580 combo up for a 16 HOUR shoot. That's how I have to use it, so weight is an important factor. For me, the arms really get tired after the 12th hour passes.
Hood design:
24-70 / 17-55 / 24-105:
As the 24-70 uses a reversed zoom design, where it's fully extended at 24mm and retracted at 70mm, it allows the hood to be effective at ALL focal lengths. This is really nice, though it's huge and goofy looking imo, but a really cool design. The 24-105 hood is optimized for full frame and film, so it's less effective than it could be on a 1.6 or 1.3 crop. The 17-55 hood is totally optimized for 1.6, the only format the lens will fit on. I use the EW-83J hood from the 17-55, and put it on the 24-105 to get better control of stray light, without any vignetting on a 1.6 crop. It even works great on a 1.3, so I would suggest any crop camera/24-105 users give the EW-83J a shot.
Focusing Ability:
17-55 / 24-70 / 24-105
Under poor conditions, the 17-55 and 24-70 both seem to perform similarly. When one can't hit focus, the other can't seem to either. First place goes to the 17-55 due to the speed. It is MUCH faster than the 24-70. The 17-55 can go from infinity to min focus and back to infinity in the time it takes the 24-70 to go from infinity to min focus. Considering that the 17-55 pauses when it hits min focus before it's return trip to infinity, I'd guess the 17-55 rips through it's focusing range at LEAST three times faster than the 24-70 can, all with the same accuracy percentage.
The 24-105 on the other hand performs noticably worse than the other two in darker conditions. There is definitely a difference. That's not to say it's horrible though. The 580's AF assist lamp does WONDERS for it in dark places, so AF actually does reasonably well with it. So I would certainly not say the 24-105 cannot perform well in darker areas. Just have that flash handy. And watch out because the hood can block the AF assist light from reaching your focus points, which is why I often remove hoods when shooting in darker places.
Price:
All tied.
Really, they are all about the same price. All have their advantages that make them WORTH their price, so there is no particular standout in regards to bang for the buck. Do you want the ONLY F/2.8 normal range IS zoom in the world? Do you need extra zoom range and IS? Do you need a fast zoom lens that also works on your 1.3 or FF body? All have their merits and all are worth their price.
Ability to be used as a weapon in a fight:
24-70 / 24-105 and 17-55
Seeing as how the 24-70 is a lot heavier, it would likely perform noticably better than the other two when used as a projectile aimed at one's head. As the 17-55 and 24-105 are the same size and weight, they both tie for second place. Though personally I am more the type to try and get away before fighting, it is nice to know the 24-70 can perform well if backed into a corner with no way out. I would also pick the 24-70 over the other two when placed in a shoulder bag and used as an improvised mace and chain flail.
So that is my review on the three lenses. If I had to choose ONLY ONE it would definitely be the 17-55. But all of them are great lenses in their own right.
Taken from: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=484061
It is in this format: 1st place / 2nd place / 3rd place
Build Quality:
24-70 / 24-105 / 17-55
The 17-55 doesn't feel super cheap like the 18-55 or 50 1.8, but it definitely isn't as nice as the L's. The 24-105 feels solid, but the 24-70 feels like a tank... like you can almost use it as a car bumper.
Image quality:
17-55 / 24-70 / 24-105
The 17-55 is sharp in the centre through to the corners, at ALL apertures and at ALL focal lengths. There is NO optical weak spot on this lens in terms of sharpness. IT does flare more readily but it's easy to control, and even fun to use artisitcally. I find the other lenses show weaker sharpness at 24mm, and the 24-105 is weaker at 105mm. The 17-55 yields slightly cooler images. But in all honestly, ALL of the lenses deliver some stellar image quality. It should be the least of your concerns when choosing one of these lenses. There are some who say the bokeh isn't fantastic on the 24-105, to which I would agree, but it isn't absolutely beautiful on the other lenses either. On a non-bokeh friendly scene with lots of high contrast lines and jagged edges that are not TOO far off the DOF, none of them seem too particularly outstanding in comparison to good primes.
Useful Range on a 1.6 crop for GENERAL shooting:
17-55 / 24-105 / 24-70
Well this is obvious because only one was actually MADE for 1.6 crop as a no-compromise solution. 24mm on a 1.6 crop feels restrictive for indoor shooting, unless you are in an open concept mansion and have tons of room to back up. It loses out on the long end, but I find the 17-20 range very critical and used VERY often. In other words, I find I'm changing lenses a LOT more with a 10-22/24-70 combo over a 17-55/70-200 combo. I personally do not enjoy making many lens changes... it's cumbersome and annoying, and I always seem to miss great shots when fumbling with lens changes. (I wish I had 3 hands)
Flexibility/versatility for GENERAL shooting
17-55 / 24-105 and 24-70
With 2.8 aperture and IS, it's ready for you in broad daylight, or the middle of the night. The 24-105 is slower but with IS can get you by in a pinch in the dark. The 24-70 is faster, but when it's really dark, it's really hard to get a 1/60 shutter speed without a tripod. But it also has an easier time focusing than the 24-105 in the dark. It's really a toss up for second between the 24-105 and 24-70 on this one, but the 17-55 is certainly on top. There is no other lens like it. Many people say you don't NEED IS at short focal lengths. Well, those people have likely never taken beautifully sharp 55mm shots handheld at 1/4 shutter, without leaning on anything. As a note, ALL of them provide nice portrait ability.
Quality Control:
24-105 / 24-70 / 17-55
Though plagued with a recall in the beginning, the 24-105 currently seems to have the lowest number of complainers, myself included. The 24-70 in the pro world is often hated for it's inaccurate focusing at the wide end. If you can get a good one then you're set. But there seems to be a significant number of bad ones. (Though certainly not in the majority I assume) Test it's focus accuracy at 24mm. Many reported the same issue... backfocusing at 24mm, which gradually improves through the focal range. By the time you get to 70mm, focus is usually spot on. So test that wide end!
The 17-55 has a weak IS motor and dies after hard use. You have to use it ONLY when needed, and it should last forever. Overuse it and it'll break. I was the first on POTN to report this back in 2006. Many identical cases have popped up since then. I have found a rather consistent way to tell if it's on the way out. Half-press the shutter so IS is activated, and slowly zoom from 17 to 55. If it's starting the dying process, you'll likely see a jump in the viewfinder between 28 and 35mm. If it isn't, then you're good. It's been mostly pros who've subjected the lens to rigorous use that have failed 17-55 IS motors, so the casual shooter may not need to worry. In any case, I suggest any 17-55 user ONLY turn on IS when you actually need it. So in other words, shooting under 1/50 with NO flash and no tripod.
Another issue with the 17-55 is dust. This can be avoided by using a UV or clear filter and threading it quite snugly. I believe it collects dust through the space between the front element and the body. If you put your hand infront of the front element and zoom back and forth, you can feel lots of air getting blown out and sucked in. Putting a filter on there really snug will prevent it from sucking dust through there. I am assuming that it now sucks air through somewhere else that may be filtered with felt or something because I am getting no dust.
Size/weight:
17-55 and 24-105 / 24-70
Both the 17-55 and 24-105 tied for this as they are almost the exact same weight and size. They are pleasant to use. The 24-70 is huge and heavy. Some people say only a wimp would complain about the 24-70 weight. Well, I challenge those tough guys to hold up a 30D/24-70/580 combo up for a 16 HOUR shoot. That's how I have to use it, so weight is an important factor. For me, the arms really get tired after the 12th hour passes.
Hood design:
24-70 / 17-55 / 24-105:
As the 24-70 uses a reversed zoom design, where it's fully extended at 24mm and retracted at 70mm, it allows the hood to be effective at ALL focal lengths. This is really nice, though it's huge and goofy looking imo, but a really cool design. The 24-105 hood is optimized for full frame and film, so it's less effective than it could be on a 1.6 or 1.3 crop. The 17-55 hood is totally optimized for 1.6, the only format the lens will fit on. I use the EW-83J hood from the 17-55, and put it on the 24-105 to get better control of stray light, without any vignetting on a 1.6 crop. It even works great on a 1.3, so I would suggest any crop camera/24-105 users give the EW-83J a shot.
Focusing Ability:
17-55 / 24-70 / 24-105
Under poor conditions, the 17-55 and 24-70 both seem to perform similarly. When one can't hit focus, the other can't seem to either. First place goes to the 17-55 due to the speed. It is MUCH faster than the 24-70. The 17-55 can go from infinity to min focus and back to infinity in the time it takes the 24-70 to go from infinity to min focus. Considering that the 17-55 pauses when it hits min focus before it's return trip to infinity, I'd guess the 17-55 rips through it's focusing range at LEAST three times faster than the 24-70 can, all with the same accuracy percentage.
The 24-105 on the other hand performs noticably worse than the other two in darker conditions. There is definitely a difference. That's not to say it's horrible though. The 580's AF assist lamp does WONDERS for it in dark places, so AF actually does reasonably well with it. So I would certainly not say the 24-105 cannot perform well in darker areas. Just have that flash handy. And watch out because the hood can block the AF assist light from reaching your focus points, which is why I often remove hoods when shooting in darker places.
Price:
All tied.
Really, they are all about the same price. All have their advantages that make them WORTH their price, so there is no particular standout in regards to bang for the buck. Do you want the ONLY F/2.8 normal range IS zoom in the world? Do you need extra zoom range and IS? Do you need a fast zoom lens that also works on your 1.3 or FF body? All have their merits and all are worth their price.
Ability to be used as a weapon in a fight:
24-70 / 24-105 and 17-55
Seeing as how the 24-70 is a lot heavier, it would likely perform noticably better than the other two when used as a projectile aimed at one's head. As the 17-55 and 24-105 are the same size and weight, they both tie for second place. Though personally I am more the type to try and get away before fighting, it is nice to know the 24-70 can perform well if backed into a corner with no way out. I would also pick the 24-70 over the other two when placed in a shoulder bag and used as an improvised mace and chain flail.
So that is my review on the three lenses. If I had to choose ONLY ONE it would definitely be the 17-55. But all of them are great lenses in their own right.
Taken from: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=484061
slower than 18-55? hmm, i beg to differ leh... the noise makes it seems slow, at least i would say their focus speed is the same...
Hi all, I'm a happy user of the 17-50 Tammy VC and the reason I purchased the vc instead of the non-vc was because most of my shots were indoor shots.. And I actually found the vc to be more potent than nikon's vr (the one on the 18-55 dx lens) I can handhold it at 1.3" shutter and still get sharp images 8/10 shots.. And other shots allowed me to fstop down a lot more so that I could get a faster shutter.. That I could never do on any other lenses before.. As for image quality, I can't tell the difference between the vc and non vc.. But I'd choose stability over image quality due to the nature of most of my shots..
The downsides would probably be the slower AF without the AF lamp's help, and the high pitched motor.. When you half shutter, you can actually hear the vc working... Kinda cool it you ask me.
But this is just my opinion... It's a lens that I'd never regret buying coz It peforms whatever it says it will do..
now I'm just waiting for Tammy to release a longer zoom with vc (70-200 VC).....
The downsides would probably be the slower AF without the AF lamp's help, and the high pitched motor.. When you half shutter, you can actually hear the vc working... Kinda cool it you ask me.
But this is just my opinion... It's a lens that I'd never regret buying coz It peforms whatever it says it will do..
now I'm just waiting for Tammy to release a longer zoom with vc (70-200 VC).....
denniskee
Senior Member
:bigeyes::bigeyes::sweat::sweat:
ovaltinemilo
Senior Member
wow...really? can upload the pic with exif file for view? coz out of desperation, sometimes I would use 1/6 on non-vr at 18mm and get reasonable sharp images. I thot tt's the lowest I could before I get dizzy by my own shots...but is 1.3" possible? then dpreview is not accurate...and I even thot I was too extreme on 1/6 non-vr alr...;p
Blur Shadow
Senior Member
WOW! Are you for real?! :bigeyes:
Similar threads
