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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 7, 2006, 10:01 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 493
Default

I was in a similar situation

Should I get the Sigmas 17-70, 18-50, 24-70? or should or go with the Tamron 17-50?

Well I decided to go with the 17-50 Tamron.

My reasons can be found on these threads:

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=65
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=65

The photozone site on the tamron 17-50 says it all.

Out of the three options sigma 18-50, tamron 17-50, and Canon 17-55, the canon wins but the tamron is almost as good and is much less money.

The 17-70 doesn't quite compete with the above three lenses, especially the tamron and canon.

Note: My first copy was bad so I returned it and got another and the 2nd was great!
nelmr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2006, 1:17 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 229
Default

Same dilemma, however, I purchased the Tamron 17-50 based on my experiences with the Tamron 28-75 F2.8. If you wait long enough the Tokina 16-50 f2.8 will be available. So far the Tamron has been a good performer.
Ctrack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2006, 3:17 PM   #13
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,544
Default

nelmr wrote:
Quote:
Out of the three options sigma 18-50, tamron 17-50, and Canon 17-55, the canon wins but the tamron is almost as good and is much less money.
I agree, IMO Canon only wins if one counts the IS - It looks more like a tie in optical performance:

o The Canon is a hair sharper @ the center, but the Tamron outperforms it at the edges - Remember this is a landscape lens so isn't sharper throughout the frame better?
o Canon has less CA, but the the Tamron vignette less - again it's a tie...
-> $wise is IS worth the difference? :idea:
(i.e. you can buy an entire other camera with built-in IS + the 17-50 f/2.8 and never worry about IS again)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2006, 3:24 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 493
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
nelmr wrote:
Quote:
Out of the three options sigma 18-50, tamron 17-50, and Canon 17-55, the canon wins but the tamron is almost as good and is much less money.
I agree, IMO Canon only wins if one counts the IS - It looks more like a tie in optical performance:

o The Canon is a hair sharper @ the center, but the Tamron outperforms it at the edges - Remember this is landscape lens so isn't sharper throughout the frame better?
o Canon has less CA, but the the Tamron vignette less - again it's a tie...
-> $wise is IS worth the difference? :idea:
(i.e. you can buy an entire other camera with built-in IS + the 17-50 f/2.8 and never worry about IS again)
NHL, I think the field curvature on the Tamron is a bit more pronounced than on the canon as well which can make the difference on the egde sharpness if the subject is flat. But really who is going to shot f2.8 on a mountain landscap? Stopped down apporpiately the field curvature would be a problem. But like you said opticlly the Tamron and Canon are about the same as the photozone.de site proves (as long as one has a good copy of course).
nelmr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2006, 3:38 PM   #15
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,544
Default

nelmr wrote:
Quote:
NHL, I think the field curvature on the Tamron is a bit more pronounced than on the canon as well which can make the difference on the egde sharpness if the subject is flat. But really who is going to shot f2.8 on a mountain landscap? Stopped down apporpiately the field curvature would be a problem.
Again I agree, landscape tends to be far away so the curvature will be masked by the DOF even @ f/2.8 - IMO this issue will only show up close (i.e. indoor), but then you already know how to compensate

BTW this field curvature is not unique to this lens but present on all WA - more so with Super Wide and I've seen many people not knowing how to test their lenses... properly :?
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2006, 7:07 AM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 15
Default

I have been looking into this same argument a bit deeper. I bought the 28-200mm Sigma and have to return it -- it just sucks sharpness/colour. Now I'd like to get either of the mentioned lenses.

The 17-70 isn't as sharp as the 18-50 but has very low CA and purple fringing even lower than the kit lens.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...2845/index.htm

The 18-50 is quite a bit sharper but has quite high CA at all local lengths, worse than the kit lens!

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm

I don't know what to go for -- I'm used to the sharpness of the 50mm f/1.8 now.


Alex
alexellisuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2006, 7:39 AM   #17
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,544
Default

Why double post?
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...557066#p557066
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2006, 12:24 PM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 15
Default

It's very relevant to this thread title. Can be removed or linked I don't mind.
alexellisuk 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 12:00 PM.