Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 16, 2010, 11:12 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1
Default Tamron

I'm looking to upgrade my canon xti kit lens and im looking at the Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II and the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6. Im into landscape and travel photography. Am I going to gain much with the extra stops from the tamron. And i was wondering if there was any downsides to buying a 3rd party lens.
dks123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 17, 2010, 4:54 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

The Tamron 17-50/2.8 Di II is an excellent lens, but it's not stabilized like the Canon 17-85, and the stabilized version isn't as good. For a little more money, I think you should look at the Canon 15-85 IS USM. It's better than either of them, except that it vignettes more than the Tamron.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2010, 5:22 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
maggo85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Arzl im Pitztal/Austria/Europe
Posts: 1,135
Default

What about the Sigma AF 17-70 2.8-4.5 DC Asp IF Makro? Would be a nice kit replacement too I guess!
__________________
Markus Rimml Photography | Facebook | Twitter

2 x EOS 6D | 24/1.4 ART | 35/1.4 ART | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 135/2L
maggo85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2010, 6:24 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by maggo85 View Post
What about the Sigma AF 17-70 2.8-4.5 DC Asp IF Makro? Would be a nice kit replacement too I guess!
But it's also not stabilized, and again, the stabilized version isn't as good. If stabilization is important, the Canon 18-55 IS and the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM are both good choices, and the Sigma is faster.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2010, 7:20 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
maggo85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Arzl im Pitztal/Austria/Europe
Posts: 1,135
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
But it's also not stabilized, and again, the stabilized version isn't as good. If stabilization is important, the Canon 18-55 IS and the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM are both good choices, and the Sigma is faster.
You're right TCav, I ment the stabilized version of course

If your budget is not too tight, I would go with the 15-85 IS USM TCav mentioned - would be a great landscape and travel lens!
__________________
Markus Rimml Photography | Facebook | Twitter

2 x EOS 6D | 24/1.4 ART | 35/1.4 ART | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 135/2L
maggo85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2010, 10:16 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
dr_spock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 879
Default

I have the Tamron. The extra F stops are handy if you need it zooming in at low light situations. You can keep F2.8 constant through the entire 17mm to 50mm range.

The downside of 3rd party lenses is they reverse-engineered the Canon EF protocol. If Canon comes out with a new body and change something, they may not work with the new body without reprogramming the lens. Other than that, they can be good value for the money.
dr_spock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28, 2010, 9:23 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
bmullen@comcast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 4,435
Default

I also have the Tamron and love it.
Bob M
bmullen@comcast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28, 2010, 9:47 AM   #8
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Let me also add - look at your photo history and the exif. Determine if the type of photography YOU do (not someone else in this thread) actually benefits from IS. Every shot benefits from sharpness. My walk-around lens has IS, but less than 1% of my shots with it benefit in a NOTICEABLE fashion. If the lens I use (24-105L on a 1dmkIII) were not IS I would be happy to use it just the same. But other people shoot differently than I do. So other people benefit from IS. My point is - don't simply assume you need IS because someone else tells you that you do. Let your own photos answer that question. With a kit lens, IS is free. But as you can see from these discussions, there are trade-offs with upgrading to another lens AND getting IS. Tradeoffs in quality or in extra money. Just make sure the trade-offs will be worth it to YOU not to other photographers.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 22, 2010, 12:44 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Oakland county Michigan
Posts: 121
Default

also tamron make a 17-50mm vc version that is stabilized. and i just pick it up. works very well in low light. this is tamrons version of a stabilizer. so far no complaints, but i have only had it about a week now..
lonefeather93 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:27 AM.