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 thingsthanks 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...
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.
Buy all three, Test them all against each other and send the two you don't want back.
Originally Posted by 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
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 []
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote