Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
vs
Tamron SP AF17-50mm F2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical
vs
Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC Macro
For general purpose and weddings.
I have Canon Speedlite 430EX flash.
Printable View
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
vs
Tamron SP AF17-50mm F2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical
vs
Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC Macro
For general purpose and weddings.
I have Canon Speedlite 430EX flash.
Id go with the Tamron 17-50 2.8
I tried a Tamron 17-50 a few years back and the AF was atrocious. It hunted, even in good light.
District,
Was that on a 40D?
I've had worse trouble with a EF 70-200 f2.8L hunting in low light than a Tamron17-50 f2.8. Now, focus accuracy is another topic!
To the OP. If money is the object, go for the Tammy. Otherwise, I hear the Canon with IS can't be beat!!
I own the Tamron and love it. Great little lens. Never had Sigma. Can't comment.
Chuck
I use the 40D now, but back then the only body I had was an XTi.My hopes for the Tamron were high, but it just didn't work out. Maybe it was justa defective lens and not a typical problem. B&H was awesome, took the Tamron back and set me up with a 17-40L. AF problem solved! [:D]
Go with the Tamron 17-50 2.8.
My grandson making silly face yesterday, XTi, Tamron 17-50 2.8, ISO 200, 1/400, f2.8, 50mm.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.67/IMG_5F00_0022a.jpg[/img]
Mark
Not an easy decision at all. I'm not going to suggest you which one, instead, I'll just say what I think you should know (if you don't know that already).
First of, if this is going to be your only lens, note that 50mm might be a bit short for some situations.
I did not try the Tamron (for Canon) lens but people seem to complain about its AF accuracy. With that said, I did try the Tamron for Nikon (on a Nikon body of course) at the shop (in a pretty dark room I have to say) and the AF seem too slow to me, but I'm not a Nikon user and maybe something was not set correctly so take my previous statement with caution.
Assuming that it is a slow lens (AF wise), then comparing it to the 17-85, the difference is between missing the shot altogether (with the Tamron) or taking a dark/noisy image with the slow (aperture wise) Canon 17-85. Personally, I'd go with a noisy picture rather than missing the shot.
So pros for the Canon:
1. Fast and silent AF
2. More reach - 85mm
Pros for the Tamron:
1. Fast lens - f/2.8
2. Nice bokeh (I guess, <span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]but didn't see this myself. Stupid me LOL... I did see it on clemmb's picture above - very nice I have to say!) thanks to the f/2.8 aperture
3. Better IQ I believe (that's what people say. clemmb's picture above seem great to me although the eyes are not tack sharp IMO, but that could be for a different reason, we can't conclude anything from that regarding the AF accuracy without knowing more)
Note that you can compensate for the slow aperture of the 17-85 using high ISO with your 40D, but you can't compensate for the inaccurate (and perhaps slow too) AF of the Tamron or for its relatively short 50mm at the long end.
Here is a picture I took with my 50D + 17-85:
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.41/17_2D00_85_5F00_example.jpg[/img]
And here is another one (I think one of my sharpest so far):
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.41/cat.jpg[/img]
Ok, last one:
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_3nu5cxOgw5k/Sj...0/IMG_0782.jpg
Note that unsharp mask was used for all the above pictures (the Cat had been unshaped for 4 or even 5 times though).
If you want, I can send you the original file of any picture you ask for. I shoot in RAW, but the bird above was taken when I first got the camera and was still shooting JPEG.
+1 for me on the Tamron. It's just right for general and wedding. I've just ordered it as my walk-around lens, and my 24-70L will retire after its arrival.
I have owned the Canon as my first DSLR lens, it's certainly not as good for wedding, it's very slow comparing to a f2.8. The distortion is visible at 17mm.
I don't know too much about the Sigma, but overall I would like to believe that the Tamron will be right for what you do.
My $0.2.
I don't know what to do?
How will Canon work in low light with Canon 430EX Flash?
I don't see any Sigma fans!?
I would like to hear what they have to say!
I know this is off topic...
I just bought off a Olympus E-420 with the 25/2.8 pancake lens in prestige condition for $380! The guy who had it didn't even used it at all and now it's mine. Absolutely a great deal for the money! Since it just happened, I'll just return my Tammy when it's arrived...
It seems the small olympus will do a better job to walk around with me - it's really just that small in my hand like a toy, and it weighs almost nothing :)
i will recommend u go to canon L lens... for my story is: i bought 40D with17-85mm IS kits lens, then bought canon18-200mm IS lens n sold my 17-85mm... then upgrade to canon 24-105LIS lens within a month... now i only keep my 18-200mm IS just for spare...
Dont waste your money mate. If u really want a good lens n good pic... go for the top lens!
I, too, suggest the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for control of DOF and usability in low light.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djdalibor
It will work as stated: it's an f/4-5.6 lens, and the 40D is an ISO 1600 camera (at best). The flash is a guide number 43m flash, so it can illuminate a scene of up to 43m away at ISO 100 and f/1. If my math and memory are correct, that's essentially equivalent to ISO 1600 and f/4, but assumes the flash is zoomed to the full telephoto position (105mm). Therefore, at the long end of the lens and the flash zoomed to 105mm (i.e. not covering the whole scene), you can light a subject 21m away, about once every four seconds. That's at max power and max aperture - you may want f/8 for better optical performance, cutting your max distance in half, and/or you may want lower ISO for less noise, again cutting your max distance in half.
I wouldn't want to be living on the edge like this. You'll need to keep a close eye on the flash confirmation light, and you'll spend a lot of time trying to choose the lowest ISO that gets the shot.