Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II or Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM?

[Oren]

Ok, I posted this on another thread but I haven't got much replies. Maybe that's because I posted it in a long thread and people who haven't read that thread just don't read it now since they are like "well I didn't follow this thread from the beginning so I won't step in at that stage". So I'll try again in a new thread dedicated for this specific question, so there we go:





Hmmm.... Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II or Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM? (for the 50D)


The Canon is a slow lens but focus speed is pretty much fast and accurate and it has a silent ring USM.


The Tamron is fast - constant f/2.8 but has less reach on the long
end, focus is slower than with the Canon (so I heard at least) and not very much accurate
according to Bryan, and it does not have fast and silent focus motor.


Now, one of the big reasons that made me realize that I need to move
to DSLR was that I wanted to stop indoor action without using a flash.
I'm not talking about stopping indoor sports and the like - just
babies, kids and people who are moving around.


If I go with the Canon, this lens is slow - f/5.6 at the long end
(which I'll probably be using a lot), so that's not good unless the 50D
ISO performance is so good so it can compensate for the slow max.
aperture.


If I go for the Tamron I might just miss the action as a result of
the slow focusing speed. With the Canon I still might get the shot but
it will be blurred, and that I can get with my P&S as well... don't
need a high end DSLR for blurred pictures.


So people... please help, I'm confused [^o)]

[Oren]

If I go for the Tamron I might just miss the action as a result of the slow focusing speed.

Bryan says the Tamron "AF is rather fast, but the high pitch buzz
made by the focus motor is deceptive - making the lens sound slower. I
found AF accuracy to be quite good with relatively few missed shots"


That matches my experience.

[Oren]

If memory serves, the Tamron doesn't have
FTM, it does not have IS and has 35mm less on the long end. Anyhow, few
missed shots is, well... missed shots and that something we don't want.


So which one is a better choise at least in your opinion?

[Oren]

Now what do you think?

[Daniel Browning]

The big differences:


17-85 f/4-5.6 IS:

• Image stabilization
• Much longer 50-85mm focal length range
• Full time manual
• Name brand

17-50 f/2.8:

• Much higher image quality (contrast, sharpness, aberrations, distortion, you name)
  
• One to two stops faster f/2.8: stop action, thin DOF

For my purposes, the 17-50 f/2.8 is the best choice. I could not live with anything slower than f/2.8, nor with the aberrations of the 17-85 superzoom.

[Jayson]

I have to agree with Daniel on this one. My Tamron is super sharp and I don't miss the IS on this one.I have owned this lens forabout3 months and have takenaboutone thousandpictures with it.I believethe AF is on par with the upper endconsumer lenses canon makes. Sure it's a bit noisy but hey, it's quieter than the kit lens. I know this doesn't make a hill of beans to many people, but I have found the macro abilities to be nice when photographing jewelry and a few other things. I own the 100mm macro and still choose the Tamron in some situations. I would go with the Tamron, you won't regret it.

[Colin]

For indoor light and no flash, I'd advocate a fast prime, maybe to augment whatever you decide on for a primary zoom lense. f/2 or faster. f/2.8 can do okay, but below f/2 it's really a nice comfort zone.

[ShutterbugJohan]

Tamron 17-50/2.8

[devsalvi]

After carefully going through the posts in favour of Tamron 17-50 f2.8 , i got one for myself yesterday. Lets see how wise the decision was!


Thanks all!


Dev

[Bill W]

Oren....can't tell which lens is better, I can only tell you of my personal experience w/the 17-85IS.


I've shot this lens in a gymnasium at volleyball match....not my first choice because of the f stop, but I couldn't get my hands on a faster lens. I was pleasantly surprised w/the outcome....most of the pics were taken at 85mm and ISO 1600, a few a 3200 (not worth it) at shutter speeds that would blur the action (ball and arm movement) and maintain focus on the player and at other times stop the action completely. PP did include some noise reduction.


I also use this lens inside at family gatherings (that include a 3 and 5yr old) w/out a flash at lower ISOs....again pleasantly surprised and satisfied w/my results. I used 17mm for the family portrait (on a tripod...excellent result) and was zooming the rest of time w/quite a few 85mm shots.


I was not disappointed w/the results in sharpness, contrast, etc. Not all the photos were keepers, I would say about 25% were duds, but that's my M.O. []


Yes, I did need to perform some PP (to remove aberrations and enhance), i.e. cropping, enlargement, contrast, saturation, etc., but that's also me, I enjoy the PP of my photos.


Well that's just some of my experiences w/the 17-85IS....I'm satisfied w/it's performance and also enjoy my landscape results on my 40D.


Sounds like you'll enjoy (reading the Tamron owners points) whichever lens you chose.


Bill