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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 20, 2005, 6:08 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2
Default

I am in the process of buying a new camera and am curious if anyone knows much about the Tamron lenses. I had an A2 with a 28mm-105mm for many years and I know I want the EOS 20D, but the sales guy tried to sell me the Tamron instead of the standard 18-55mm or 17-85mm lens.

Does anyone have any suggestions?
Pictaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 20, 2005, 9:32 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 301
Default

Pictaker wrote:
Quote:
I am in the process of buying a new camera and am curious if anyone knows much about the Tamron lenses. I had an A2 with a 28mm-105mm for many years and I know I want the EOS 20D, but the sales guy tried to sell me the Tamron instead of the standard 18-55mm or 17-85mm lens.

Does anyone have any suggestions?
From the choices you provided I'd probably choose between the Tamron 28-105 and the Canon EF-S 17-85 and forget about the 18-55.

On some sites such as http://www.photozone.de the optical rating for the Tamron and the Canon 17-85 are pretty much the same, so if the ranking is correct (this is where others will hopefully give their opinions:lol I would make my choice based on the following:

1. Taking into account the crop factor for the camera, which lens is more practical for the types of pictures you shoot at the wide end? At 28mm the Tamron will give a result similar to 45mm on a film SLR if you have a 20D or XT, versus 27mm for the 17-85.

2. How long alens do you need? If 85mm is enough for what you are doing, go for the 17-85. Again, if your are coming from the film SLR world, remember the crop factor.

3. Is an f4-5.6 lens fast enough for what you need it for? If not, the Tamron f2.8 would be a better choice.

4. If the above is a wash, which one has the better build quality? I don't have either, so I don't have an opinion.

5. If 1-4 are still a wash, then I guess you would have to base your decision on cost (the Tamron is Edit: OOPS! gave the wrong deltamore) or go with the manufacturer that you trust the most.

For me, if this was going to be my only lens at the start I would pick the Canon EF-S 17-85 from your three choices. This is mainly because I feel the Tamron isn't wide enough for a DSLR with a 1.6 crop. However, againfor me, Iwould probably have a slightly different list to choose from ... mainly because I know what are the primary types of shots I like to make.

The Canon EF-S 18-55 isn't even in the same league as the other two lenses (again look at the score on the photozone site), and I would only go with it ifIhad a very limited budget. Even if that were the case, I'd buy an older model DSLR with a better lens ... cause a 300D or older DSLR with ahigh qualitylens is going to capturebetter imagesthan a 20D or XT withthe 18-55. Don't get me wrong ... you can get good images with the 18-55, but you do have to know the limitations of the lens and work within them.


BobA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2005, 9:40 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2
Default

Interestingly, the two Tamron lens options that were given were the 18-200mm or 28-300mm. Either for $399. Canon's 17-85mm IS lens goes for about $600.

I've been shooting for years until my A2 took a swin in the Bow river in Banff, Alberta in Sept. I can't wait to get a new camera and thought digital is the way to go, but I don't know if Tamron is any good. My A2 took great pictures and I want the same quality.
Pictaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2005, 10:58 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 11
Default

I was in the same situation on Saturday . I went to buy a 20D and didnt know if to get either of those Tamron or the Canon 17-85. I knew the salesman so he wasnt just trying to make a sale and he said that from his experience the 17-85 would give much better results. He shop produces prints from digital cameras and he had noticed contistently better results from the Canon lens. If cost isnt a factor then the 17-85 seems the way to go. I did and have been very pleased wit it so far.

Good Luck
pwaite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2005, 11:05 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 301
Default

Pictaker wrote:
Quote:
Interestingly, the two Tamron lens options that were given were the 18-200mm or 28-300mm. Either for $399. Canon's 17-85mm IS lens goes for about $600.

I've been shooting for years until my A2 took a swin in the Bow river in Banff, Alberta in Sept. I can't wait to get a new camera and thought digital is the way to go, but I don't know if Tamron is any good. My A2 took great pictures and I want the same quality.
Cause I made a boo-boo. The Tamron 28-105 f2.8 is $650 after a $150 mail in rebate. So it's just slightly more expensive than the Canon 17-85. The 18-200 f3.5-6.3 is $400 and the 28-300 f3.5-6.3 is $399. These two are real general purpose (one size fits all) lenses and I wouldn't expect the optical quality to be as good as the Canon 17-85 or the Tamron 28-105. Check the www.photozone.de site though (it's down right now, or else I'd do it) ... you never know, they may have got some good reviews :-)
BobA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2005, 11:19 PM   #6
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

the autofocus is going to be real slow with the 28-300 and the 18-200 tamrons.. andoptical quality really takes a nose dive when you are talking about 10-12xzooms.. i wouldnt really consider these two if you are serious about your photos..
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2005, 11:11 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 18
Default

I purchased a 20D body earlier this year and then went to great lengths to first find in stock, and then buy the 17-85 IS. Shortly after my purchase, I sold it (for what I paid) and purchased the Tamron 28-75 XR DI for less. Reason: f2.8, f2.8 and the optical performance :-). Downside: Not USM, not IS and wide end only 28. With a faster lens I figured I didn't need IS and the USM was a convenience I decided to trade for the speed and cost. As far as range, I have filled in the lower end with a 10-22 :-)
Arne 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 3:18 AM.