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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 8, 2008, 9:30 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 17
Default

Just read an article in September Pop Photography magazine and noted that this lens was called the best pro class lens for the money and especially good for portrait work. I rarely use a tripod and I know it is a fairly heavy lens with no IS. I am using the 17-85 IS Canon now. Also , I'm interested in the new Tamron 18-270. Please educated me. Thanks, Dean.
bestofdean is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 8, 2008, 10:05 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
wsandman1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 318
Default

I brought this lens, unfortunately I dropped it and it's in for repair. It's actually not that heavy, no IS and not made of metal. The image quality is outstanding. I think the magazine article rated it above the current Cannon and Sigma equivalents. It's definitely not an action sports lens but for portraits it is great!
wsandman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2008, 12:27 AM   #3
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

wsandman1 wrote:
Quote:
I brought this lens, unfortunately I dropped it and it's in for repair.
Also a fundamental difference between the Tamron and the real pro glass from sigma and canon. There's where having a metal lens really helps. Part of 'pro glass' is it's durability.

But other hands-on reviews bear out the same results regarding sharpness - it's a sharp lens but slow to focus compared to canon/sigma (plenty fine for non sports use though). Certainly going to perform better than the 18-270
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2008, 9:55 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 17
Default

I would like to ask then, would you buy it or would you spend more money for the Sigma or the Canon? My camera is a 30D. Thanks for the advice.
bestofdean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2008, 12:22 PM   #5
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

bestofdean wrote:
Quote:
I would like to ask then, would you buy it or would you spend more money for the Sigma or the Canon? My camera is a 30D. Thanks for the advice.
Everything is a trade-off. My needs are different than yours. I do primarily sports shooting. I've owned the sigma 70-200 2.8 and the Canon and the Canon is better. But that's for what I do. For me, focus speed was critical and I've also come to appreciate build quality. For instance I once had my 100-400L dropped on cement. Rather than having to go to a repair shop it has a tiny dent that doesn't affect it's performance at all. I also like the fact the Canon is weather sealed.

Having said all that - the sigma lens served me well for several years. It was a fantastic lens.

But what's important is what YOU need/want, not what I need/want. If you're not doing sports work the focus speed won't really matter. Then it becomes a matter of - how important is build quality to you? If you can live with plastic lenses then the Tamron should produce great shots for less money. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer. It's a matter of what attributes are most important. The attributes being discussed being:

1. Sharpness

2. Focus speed

3. Build Quality

4. Price

I think we've given you a good idea of where each of the 3 lenses falls in each category. You just need to decide which categories are most important to YOU and select your lens accordingly.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2008, 9:30 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 17
Default

Thankyou for an excellent reply that is spot on. I will think about what you said and try to make a good decision.

Dean
bestofdean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 12, 2008, 7:32 AM   #7
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Beside being the sharpest of all 3 (at a lower cost), the Tamron also has the shortest focusing distance giving you the highest magnification for that 'macro' when needed again high-speed is not a must have for close-up work...

So again it's a compromise
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 12, 2008, 8:05 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
wsandman1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 318
Default

After going to a Tamron demo, I decided to take a chance on purchasing the Tamron. I'm not making a lot of money with my photgraphy and most of it comes from weddings and studio protrait work. I also photograph flowers and insects (when available). I was estatic when I read the reviews regarding the image quality and close up advantages of the Tamron lens. I couldn't help thinking"if this lens is this good, imagine what the Canon's image quality must be". Unfortunately, I also found out about the build quality differencesafter dropping it, it's still in for repair. Bill
wsandman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 12, 2008, 8:36 AM   #9
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Tamron has more than one lens line, just like Sigma. Tamron's SP (Super Performance) series lenses like this one have better build quality compared to their consumer grade lenses, just like Sigma's EX series lenses have their best build quality.

I've got two of Tamron's SP lenses right now... a Tamron SP 35-105mm f/2.8 and a Tamron SP 20-40mm f/2.7-3.5 (both are AF lenses in Minolta Maxxum/Dynax/Alpha mount).

These are both fairly well made lenses. But, frankly, I'd give up the metal construction of my 35-105mm f/2.8 for a lighter lens with more composite materials, if the optical quality was the same, just to get the weight decrease.

Apparently, Tamron wanted to market their new SP 70-200mm f/2.8 as being a lighter alternative. So, we're seeing more plastic in it's construction. They had this to say about it in the initial press releases:

Quote:
Lightweight tele-zoom boasts F/2.8 constant maximum aperture

Tamron has realized the light weight of 1,150g ( 40.6oz.) for this F/2.8 fast tele zoom lens by using engineering plastic materials with superior dimensional stability and strength-more than sufficient for industrial applications-for its barrel parts.
I wouldn't assume that a lens with more metal wouldn't have been damaged in the same fall either. Sometimes you can get lucky (as when JohnG dropped one of his lenses). But, I've seen reports of damaged L lenses, too (optical elements knocked out of alignment, etc.). It's not a good idea to drop any lens. ;-)

Tamron also offers a 6 year warranty on this lens. Of course, damage caused by dropping one is not a lens defect. lol

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2008, 8:44 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
wsandman1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 318
Default

I dropped it twice, the second time it was straight down from a height of 5 feet. It was in the soft case. Outside it looked perfectly normal. I had never dropped a lens like that before. I think the build quality of the lens is excellent, I just made a serious mistake in handling it. My only complaint was the slowness andnoise when focusing. I liked it so much that I had placed my Canon 70 - 200 F4 non IS up for sale. The image quality was similar, but the 2.8 was giving me the types of photos I wanted and the "Macro" feature really makes it more suitable for what I want. I havethree "sleeper"Lenses: Canon 100 F2.8 macro, Sigma 100 - 300 EX, and now the Tamron 70 - 200 F2.8. By "sleeper" I mean that in terms of image quality they rival or exceed the L series equivalents.
wsandman1 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 5:19 AM.