canon ef-s 17-55 f2.8 vs tamrom af 17-50 f2.8 VC vs canon ef-s 15-85 f3.5-5.6

[alvin_jc]

Which one would you buy? my considerations for each lens is:


Canon ef-s 17-55 f2.8 << for me it's perfect. BUT, price is a bit steep


tamron 17-50 f.28 VC << truth be told, I don't know a thing about tamron lenses... so give me a proper review as I don't find the one in here is quite helpful... Sorry bryan :) I need a personal field experience and comparison with the canon 17-55


canon ef-s 15-85 f3.5-5.6 << love the zoom range. But, I probably want a bigger aperture...


So... please help... and if there are other lenses that you have in mind, spill the beans!


Thanks :)

[Rodger]

Hey Alvin!


I'll help you as much as I can with my limited experience.


- I've never had the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS, so I can't give you anything on that, but I know it's one heck of a lens.


- I just recently bought myself the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non VC (as Bryan's rated the non VC a bit higher, plus Im on a student budget!) My first copy of the Tamron from BH quit working on me within a week. BH's return policy is great though and I exchanged it for a new copy. My main complaints about the Tamron are the reverse zoom direction which takes a bit of getting used to (nothing major though), and the loud AF motor. AF speed is good, although it's certainly nothing like the USM motors in Canon's high end glass.


- I've never had the 15-85. I'm a sucker for constant aperture zoom lenses and probably would't consider the 15-85 in my personal line up. But that's me.


Overall, I think that if you're on a budget and can deal with some of the very minor inconveniences of the Tamron, go for it. It's ALOT lighter on the wallet. Although, if you've got the money, go for the Canon!


-Rodger

[Brendan7]

Tamron's 17-50 VC isn't anywhere as sharp as Canon's 17-55. In general, Canon is usually the way to go. My strategy is to pick the best I can buy and if I need to wait a bit and save for it, then so be it. The 15-85 has great IQ, but if you have the $700 the 15-85 costs I suggest just saving a bit more and getting the 17-55. It's a near-perfect lens: useful zoom range, great IQ, three-stop IS, 2.8 aperture. If there's any reason you can't afford the 17-55, the 15-85 should be next in line. You'll give up the f/2.8 aperture, though.


my 2¢


brendan

[Daniel Browning]

I think Bryan's review of the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is great. It matches my "field experience" with the lens. What else do you need to know?

[Sheiky]

I've had the tamron 17-50 non-VC and I traded it for the canon 17-55. In my case (a lot of action based photography) the autofocus of the tamron was just too slow. The canons USM definitely makes the extra cash worth it. At least that's for the needs I had. Most people wouldn't have this problem at all.


If you don't really need a super fast autofocus (don't get me wrong the tamron isn't really slow, but slower[:P]) I can say that the tamron is imagequalitywise a real performer. Center sharpness, colors and contrast are great. It's a really good quality lens. I'm talking about the nonVC lens, but I guess the new lens will sooner be better than worse.


About the zoom ring going opposite of canon...you'll get used to it very fast. I had tamron and canon lenses at the same time, but you'll handle each lens different, so I don't think that should be much of a problem. Tamron has a much better warranty sytem than canon by the way. I think it's 5 or 6 years against 1 year? Don't know for sure.


Maybe you could also take a look at the nonVC lens? Second hand they go for a bargain and they're often still in great shape. That's if you can miss the vibration reduction of course.


I'm curious...what's the pricetag of the tamron? Is is much cheaper than the canon?


Jan

[alvin_jc]

Honestly, I don't know what to choose...


So y'all said that the tamron is good but not as good as the canon 17-55 right?


So my question is this, how sharp is sharp? Is the tamron 17-50 (VCs and non-VCs) unsharpness on the edges are to the point that it bothers you?


as for the 15-85, I think that lens is beautiful except for the aperture numbers... I really like my lens to be fast... But I also love the extra range that it gives me compared to the 17-55 and the tamron. Question is: How the f3.5-5.6 will handle in a very wide range of photography fields? Like from indoor sports to beautiful landscape?


I never had a long experience in therms of really taking lenses to the point that I know its limitations. and since I've been taking photos from a borrowed 400D with 18-85mm kit lens (which is really sketchy btw), I haven't have any good experience on how to determine a good lens...


Thanks guys for reading my rumbling, hopefully you still wants to help me choose here :)


PS: as for money wise, I can get the canon 17-55 but It's going to be really hard on my wallet, so I came up with the idea of "saving" a bit... so... what I really trying to achieve is a bang for your buck lens! :) any other lenses are welcome since I only have knowledge of canon's lenses.


PS no. 2: the canon 17-55 looks way cooler than the tamron :p

[Rodger]

Canon is $1,060.00 currently at BH


Tamron non VC is$459.95 currently at BH


Tamron with VC is$649.00 currently at BH with a rebate bringing it down to $624.00.


With my student budget, it was enough of a difference for me to go Tamron and deal with the [slower] AF speed. ButI whole heartedly agree with Jan, if you need fast AF, go with the Canon.

[Sheiky]

Honestly, I don't know what to choose...


So y'all said that the tamron is good but not as good as the canon 17-55 right?





We've all been there [:P] Well in my eyes the tamron is as good as the canon, imagequalitywise. I can show you some fullsize photos I guess? I'll look for a good example.


The only problem I had with Tamron was it's relatively "slow" autofocus. That's the only thing I can think of. And it's no biggie in 99,9% of times. It's just that I used to do a lot of sports-photography, but if you're not into that or other action-photography...don't sweat yourself [:)]



as for the 15-85, I think that lens is beautiful except for the aperture numbers... I really like my lens to be fast... But I also love the extra range that it gives me compared to the 17-55 and the tamron. Question is: How the f3.5-5.6 will handle in a very wide range of photography fields? Like from indoor sports to beautiful landscape?


Indoor sports it would suck at, but F2.8 will not help you very much either, but it would be a lot better. High isoperformance is preferred indoors. At least by me [:P] I don't doubt at the great landscape capability of the 15mm [A] But between both canons I would go for the 17-55 for it's aperture.


Answers on your Ps#1) If you really want to buy a bang for bucks lens you have to try to get a second hand tamron 17-50. If you don't like it, you could sell it for about the same price. Given the prices that Rodger gave us, it looks like a really good deal! The 17-55 is a very good lens and I really liked it, but maybe you wouldn't even use the benefits over the Tamron or even see the "better quality" it produces. Some things are only shown at 200% etc. Technical reviews are a good base, but real-life experience is more important.


If you end up buying a second hand tamron, the thing you'll miss is IS. I don't know if that's a big deal for you. You'll stay behind with a lot of cash of course and the opportunity to buy maybe another lens or atribute.


Perhaps you could try out all 3 lenses at your local store? By the way my advice is purely based on the 17-50 nonVC and 17-55 of canon. I don't know anything of the tamron with VC.


Ps#2 Yeah it looks way cooler, but is also a lot bigger and heavier. But yes it's a very good looking and very userfriendly lens. Nice big zoom and focusrings etc.



Thanks guys for reading my rumbling, hopefully you still wants to help me choose here :)


Always!!! Believe me you've got to get really arrogant and annoying before people stop helping you on this forum. And with really I mean REALLY REALLY!! Sometimes I'm amazed how far people will go to help around here.


Oh by the way, one thing you have to do yourself is make the decision. We can give advice a little to you, that's all [:P]


Now I'll look for some pictures for you to determine sharpness etc. You'll hear from me [:)]





Oh by the way: don't get me wrong, the Canon is a perfect and marvelous lens, but looking at your budget. I don't think the extra 400 or more bucks will justify the difference in quality. I can think of a lot of nice things you could do with it.

[Sheiky]

I see that if you want to buy new...The extra money spend on a VC version of the tamron looks pretty good value to me. But that's only if you need new.


Be right back

[Sheiky]

Alright I found 2 pictures that are safe to show around here [:P] just kidding.


I've found 1 taken at F2.8 on a 450D wide open and 1 at f7.1 which was the sweet spot of my 50D. Both of them have sharpness set to 0 and are straight out of camera. Auto WB and standard picture style. Both are fullsized jpegs.


Person at F2.8 ("http://www.fruityview.nl/tdp/person.jpg)


Flower at F7.1 ("http://www.fruityview.nl/tdp/flower.jpg)


If you'd like to see the raws or any other picture, just give me a signal!


Jan

[alvin_jc]

Wow Shelky! that was a big help! Thanks very much... From those pictures I can see that the lens' image quality is good enough for me... And I think the price difference just makes its ways to other nice things :) thanks shelky!


and if anyone have experience with other lenses in similar zoom range (makes like tokina or any other brand that is good but not getting enough rep) give a shout in here...

[MikeWhy]

In my role as Master of the Obvious this evening, I'll point out the slight CA rimming the flower petals. It'll clean up nicely.





I like the 17-55/2.8 IS, especially for low light and intimately close settings. I've found it to be quite well behaved with regard CA.

[RonG]

Buy all three, Test them all against each other and send the two you don't want back.

[Sheiky]

Wow Shelky! that was a big help! Thanks very much... From those pictures I can see that the lens' image quality is good enough for me... And I think the price difference just makes its ways to other nice things :) thanks shelky!


No problem, that's what I tried to do! I also never had any complaints with the image quality of this lens.


By the way Mike, now that you mention I see the slight CA as well. Never noticed and never bothered at it at all. I've seen worse from even the best L lenses (24-70 and 70-200). And I guess it's easily to get removed, so no biggie. And when looking at the price you can't complain at all I think?


The canon is really great and at 100% pixel-peeping it will win, I don't doubt about it. But the Tamron is simply the best you can get for a very nice price. And he might even buy a very nice 2nd lens or attribute as well. Maybe even spend the rest on a nice trip to make even better pictures. In the end it's the photographer that makes the pictures, the equipment can just make it easier [:D]