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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 2, 2007, 2:17 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 431
Default

I got the green light to return the Sigma 24-70and am thinking the 17-50 2.8 Tamron is the way to go since its wider &lighter. But I can't find any designation for USM/HSM in the Tamron "language". Does tamron make fast, quiet focus motors, and does this lens have it?

If not, I guess I'm shelling out for the Canon 17-55 IS USM.


urbanaries is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 2, 2007, 6:32 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
dr_spock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 879
Default

The Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 uses a micromotor. It sounds like the 50mm EF lens. You could manual focus it in silence. It makes more noise than USM.

I guess you're saving for a 17-55mm f2.8 EF-$. :-)
dr_spock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2007, 8:38 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 53
Default

I have been very happy with the Tamron 17-50mm on my 30D. Focusing is not silent like on the Canon lens, but the noise level is still very low and it does not bother me at all.

You can get an idea of what it sounds like at the following site, which contains an audio clip of the autofocus.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...50_review.html
ricciardella is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2007, 8:05 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 431
Default

thanks for the replies....tried out the Tamron 17-50 in store today, much much quieter and faster than the Sigma, but a bit louder than the Canon.

But not $700 louder. I used it in a shoot today and found it to be pretty fast, versatile little lens. Nice!

Now I just need to decide on how to spend that $700 I saved...a Sigma 70-200 or 50-150. The 70-200 has more reach but leaves a gap in my zoom lineup, and the 50-150 is soooo much smaller and lighter. :?
urbanaries is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2007, 5:56 AM   #5
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

urbanaries wrote:
Quote:
thanks for the replies....tried out the Tamron 17-50 in store today, much much quieter and faster than the Sigma, but a bit louder than the Canon.

But not $700 louder. I used it in a shoot today and found it to be pretty fast, versatile little lens. Nice!

Now I just need to decide on how to spend that $700 I saved...a Sigma 70-200 or 50-150. The 70-200 has more reach but leaves a gap in my zoom lineup, and the 50-150 is soooo much smaller and lighter. :?
Let's not forget that you're comparing apples to oranges: The larger Sigma 24-70 EX is a full-frame glass/metal lens built like a tank (along with the higher inertia) with full metal sounding gearings against smaller and lighter composite 'digital' lenses only with softer sounding plastic meshing teeth... Do you pick a lens by the images(/construction) they produced or the way they sound?

-> The real question is do you see a full-frame or a 1D MrkX in your future?
If you do then the 50-150 or another lighter/smaller 'digital only' lens may not be the better selection...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2007, 10:15 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 431
Default

You raise valid points regarding construction, for sure. I have heard/read positive reviews about the Tamron IQ (didn't find any raves on that Sigma) so made the final choice with a clear conscience. I did need the wider end, that was a major concern as on the 20D 24mm isn't wide enough. The slow focus hunt in low light made the grinding that much more obvious. The Tamron seems to work much faster in low light. Focus speed is certainly a factor.

I don't generally buy into the "can't buy EFSs because I may go FF later" fear-based decision making. If I buy a 5D/Mark, my 20D would either become a backup, and I'd need lenses dedicated/optimized for it, or I'd sell the lenses with the body. Crop factor is as much an issue as compatibility (the seemingly innocuous gap btw 17mm and 24mm being a perfect example.)

But you do raise a good argument about having a digital only zoom lineup re: 50-150 vs. 70-200. If I wasn't still thrilled with the 20Ds performance after 15,000 actuations, it would weigh much, er....heavier.


urbanaries is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2007, 12:38 PM   #7
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

urbanaries wrote:
Quote:
I don't generally buy into the "can't buy EFSs because I may go FF later" fear-based decision making. If I buy a 5D/Mark, my 20D would either become a backup...
Me too... I tend to push for cropped lenses (and cropped cameras):
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=65
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=37

Problem is when you're on location (or travel) you tend to bring lenses which work on both format... a lens that works only on 1 camera tend to be the extra!
-> When I travel I usually pare down on what I carry (and leave a lot of lenses/camera) behind...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2007, 12:32 AM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
urbanaries wrote:
Quote:
thanks for the replies....tried out the Tamron 17-50 in store today, much much quieter and faster than the Sigma, but a bit louder than the Canon.

But not $700 louder.* I used it in a shoot today and found it to be pretty fast, versatile little lens. Nice!

Now I just need to decide on how to spend that $700 I saved...a Sigma 70-200 or 50-150. The 70-200 has more reach but leaves a gap in my zoom lineup, and the 50-150 is soooo much smaller and lighter. :?
Let's not forget that you're comparing apples to oranges: The larger Sigma 24-70 EX is a full-frame glass/metal lens built like a tank (along with the higher inertia) with full metal sounding gearings against smaller and lighter composite 'digital' lenses only with softer sounding plastic meshing teeth... Do you pick a lens by the images(/construction) they produced or the way they sound?

->* The real question is do you see a full-frame or a 1D MrkX in your future?**
If you do then the 50-150 or another lighter/smaller 'digital only' lens may not be the better selection...
Actually, you are way off the mark. A heavy lens does not mean a better lens. I prefer a quality light lens over an old tech heavy lens any day. All lenses were heavy back in the day, yet they wore out at an alarming rate. Modern lenses are very durable, and have raised the quality bar considerably over the past couple of decades. Weight is something that you have to suffer with, and not a prime indicator of quality. Besides, the sheer mass of a heavy lens almost guarantees catastrophic failure if it takes a dive to the ground. I have had lightweight lenses bounce off of their plastic hoods without incident though.

The full frame argument is pretty bogus as well. I own several full frame film cameras, and owned a 5D for a time. I also own two 30D bodies, and they get the most play (by far). If you like to shoot pictures, you buy for what you have now, and not for what you might own at some point in the future. First, 1.6 crop sensor cameras are here to stay. They are not going away, and they are already awesome. Second, even though I own FF bodies, crop sensor bodies tend to be faster, lighter, better on the long end, and with select EF-S lenses, just as good on the wide end as a FF body. Except for situations that demand insane pixel counts, the crop body is just this side of wonderful.

If you see an FF body in your future, buy it when it arrives on the market. Meanwhile, feed your crop sensor camera with the three EF-S lenses that make it a full range photographic tool. Buy the EF-S 10-22, the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, and the EF-S 60 f/2.8 lenses. The rest can be filled out with EF or EF-L lenses.

Even if you do buy an FF body in the future, your current crop sensor body will never run out of reasons for living, and it is always good practise to have a spare body on hand anyway.

Back to the initial topic, yes, the Tamron is a nice lens, as is the Sigma. The metal gear, vs plastic gear story is just a fabrication though, and has no basis in fact. Ring USM motors are quiet because they don't use gears in the normal sense. Do a little web research, and I'm sure that you will appreciate the real magic of the ring USM. It doesn't matter what material your gear motor lens uses, as a ring USM motor will always be more reliable, faster, offer far longer service life, and remain silent in operation. That feature alone is worth a price premium.

The claimed $700 price difference (as of today, the price difference on Amazon.com is $560)is also justified by higher optical quality, and most important, IS. I understand that many people discount the cost of an IS lens by convincing themselves that they don't need it, but it is worth the cost. It is worth every dime.

The same goes for the various 70-200 mm zooms available. Sure, you can save a bunch of cash by avoiding IS, but I wouldn't spend that much money on a lens without saving my dimes until I could get the IS version. There is no substitute for IS. It allows you to make many shots that would fall on their face without it. Sigma makes a fine 70-200 mm f/2.8 lens, but it is a little larger than the Canon IS version, and weighs slightly more to boot. And, it does not have IS. Why buy a Mercedes without carpets and seats? Postpone the purchase until the budget can support the real deal.

Volk
Volk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2007, 6:47 AM   #9
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Volk wrote:
Quote:
Actually, you are way off the mark. A heavy lens does not mean a better lens. I prefer a quality light lens over an old tech heavy lens any day. All lenses were heavy back in the day, yet they wore out at an alarming rate. Modern lenses are very durable, and have raised the quality bar considerably over the past couple of decades. Weight is something that you have to suffer with, and not a prime indicator of quality. Besides, the sheer mass of a heavy lens almost guarantees catastrophic failure if it takes a dive to the ground. I have had lightweight lenses bounce off of their plastic hoods without incident though.
Not really - what materials are your L lens made off?
I'm sure it's not high-quality plastic...
-> I was referencing the Sigma EX their 'pro' line which are all metal like the L and yes I do have many IS lenses already!
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=65

But IS does not help in some conditions (even low-light):
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=65
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2007, 5:28 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2
Default

I am considering purchasing one of the two lenses below.

1. Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC MACRO

2. SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF]

Both are similarly priced and have similar capabilities. I heard that Tamron makes a slightly higher quality lens in the sense that Sigma has had some quality production problems at thier plant. Quality concerns aside, it the sigma lens has a little better range because of the MACRO factor. I probably will not go wrong with either lens, but I would be pretty dissappointed if I purchased a lens and it had performance problems a year after purchasing it.

Do you have a recommendation?

Thank you for any advice you can provide.

Jackster


Jackster 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 9:10 PM.