Lens upgrade purchase

Nifkin

Nifkin

Messages
1,267
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
No
Hi everybody,

I want to get hold of a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens for my 450D, and I am wondering

  • Does anybody here have that lens and is using it with the 450D, and do they think it's a worthwhile upgrade from the kit lens considering its hefty price tag?
  • Seeing as this lens has been out about three years, is it likely to be superceded any time soon? Or would the current version last a good long time?

Thanks in advance!

Niffy :thinking: :)
 
Nifkin said:
Hi everybody,

I want to get hold of a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens for my 450D, and I am wondering

  • Does anybody here have that lens and is using it with the 450D, and do they think it's a worthwhile upgrade from the kit lens considering its hefty price tag?
  • Seeing as this lens has been out about three years, is it likely to be superceded any time soon? Or would the current version last a good long time?

Thanks in advance!

Niffy :thinking: :)
Click to expand...

I have this lens mate and when i mean it is tack sharp, it really is.Honestly. You will not go wrong with f/2.8 glass.I'm thinking of upgrading to a 5d Mark II and a 1D MarK III and it will be killing me to loose this lens from my lineup...:(

If you ever decide to move to a full frame camera like the two bodies that i mentioned look towards the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L Mark II or the 17-40mm f/4L.
 
I have the same camera (450D) & i to want to change from the standard lens but i don't know which to go for either the 17-55 or the 15-85 any help would be appreciated
 
Nifkin said:
... worthwhile upgrade from the kit lens considering its hefty price tag?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. It's an awesome lens.

Nifkin said:
... is it likely to be superceded any time soon?
Click to expand...
Unlikely. Most lenses have production runs of up to 10 years or even more.
 
I hired one from Stewart a month or so back, and it really was a fantastic lens.

That said it's a fair amount of money, so I guess it really depends how much you think you woud need it. Alternative is the Tamron 17-50 non IS (not tried it) but about 1/2 price and seems to get good reviews, and I think they just released an IS version.
 
I had a go with the 17-55 IS the other night and can vouch that it is execllent. Having said that, I have the Tamron 17-50 non-IS and for the money you cant go wrong.
My only concern about the 17-55 IS is that it is only for crop sensors. I'd like to move to FF in the future and am therefore looking to get either the 24-105 or 24-70
 
I've got the 17-55mm and it's a great lens, you won't regret it. Can't comment on the 15-85mm though, maybe worth waiting until that's launched.
 
Thanks for all the replies. Now then; on the recommendations here, I've also been looking at the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, which is available for as little as £290 on amazon.co.uk. I know it doesn't have USM or IS, but, in terms of image quality alone, how do you feel it compares to the much more expensive Canon of my OP? Would it be a false economy to go down this route?

Cheers!
 
Pinarello said:
I'm thinking of upgrading to a 5d Mark II and a 1D MarK III and it will be killing me to loose this lens from my lineup...:(
Click to expand...

Trade it for a 24-70mm f2.8, (croppability of the 5D2 providing the slight shortfall in length).
 
For a pretty scientific comparison of the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 versus the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, have a look here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=398&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=0

This allows you to see how the different lenses resolve the same test chart at the same focal lengths and the same apertures. Looks like the Tamron outperforms the Canon EF-S 17 55 at f/2.8 at most focal lengths in the test above. But then again it doesn't have IS, although a "VC" version of the Tamron has just been announced...
 
maarten.dhaese said:
For a pretty scientific comparison of the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 versus the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, have a look here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=398&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=0

This allows you to see how the different lenses resolve the same test chart at the same focal lengths and the same apertures. Looks like the Tamron outperforms the Canon EF-S 17 55 at f/2.8 at most focal lengths in the test above. But then again it doesn't have IS, although a "VC" version of the Tamron has just been announced...
Click to expand...

If you read the full report, and also some of the explanation about how those tests are done (it's hidden in the Help section on the site) you will see that the performance of the Canon in the test did not match its real world performance. It is easily the best lens in its class.

That is because their test procedure is fundamentally flawed and this is particularly evident with several of their wide zoom reviews. You should not test shorter focal length lenses against a flat target, particularly at very close distance, which is exactly what they do. It simply proves that many lenses exhibit a little field curvature which is almost always irrlevant in actual use, and also that sharpness often reduces slightly at close distance.

That website is great for pixel peepers and those who spend their picture taking time photographing test charts. Normal people should view their conclusions with a large pinch of salt. Also beware of which camera was used when comparing lenses, particularly older tests done with older cameras vs new.
 
Sure, but what about the IQ performance of the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8?? Seeing as it can be had for less than £300, whereas the Canon 17-55 f2.8 costs more than £700, and I reckon I can live without IS, do you think it's worth it?
 
Nifkin said:
Sure, but what about the IQ performance of the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8?? Seeing as it can be had for less than £300, whereas the Canon 17-55 f2.8 costs more than £700, and I reckon I can live without IS, do you think it's worth it?
Click to expand...

Well, if you're asking me, all I can say is I have the Canon 17-55 and you should not go away with the idea that, based on the test linked above, any other similar lens either equals it or betters it optically.

But I agree that the Tamron looks pretty sharp and good value. The basic kit lens is also surprisingly sharp, much cheaper still, and has IS, too. The new Vibration Control version of the Tamron is also interesting, but is a completely different optical design to the non-VC version. Then there's the Sigma version.

There is more to lens choice than sharpness and price, although I guess those are the two priority considerations for most people
 
I just bought a 50d...and had the same dilema you had...

I bought the Tamron 17-50 f2.8...LOVE IT....and MUCH CHEAPER AS WELL...

But like most things in life...go try them somewhere if you can...Im in Glasgow...if you are near come try it out...

I got mine from here...

http://www.onestop-digital.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=24_29&products_id=301

£250

And the Canon is only £680...

http://www.onestop-digital.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=24_26&products_id=341

Hope this helps...

STEVIER
 
Thanks for the links, Big Man, will check them out.

HoppyUK said:
The basic kit lens is also surprisingly sharp, much cheaper still, and has IS, too.

There is more to lens choice than sharpness and price, although I guess those are the two priority considerations for most people
Click to expand...

Yeah, I bought my 450D with the basic kit lens, and it's what I'm trying to improve upon, coz it can't really be described as anymore than adequate; f3.5-5.6 vs a constant f2.8???? IQ-wise it really is just a placeholder until you decide you want to get a bit more serious about this business...

And of course there's more to a lens than sharpness and price (although IQ is really what's most important to me), but seeing that the direct competition to the Canon 17-55 IS are more than half the price, I defo think they're worthy of serious consideration (y)
 
Nifkin said:
Thanks for the links, Big Man, will check them out.



Yeah, I bought my 450D with the basic kit lens, and it's what I'm trying to improve upon, coz it can't really be described as anymore than adequate; f3.5-5.6 vs a constant f2.8???? IQ-wise it really is just a placeholder until you decide you want to get a bit more serious about this business...

And of course there's more to a lens than sharpness and price (although IQ is really what's most important to me), but seeing that the direct competition to the Canon 17-55 IS are more than half the price, I defo think they're worthy of serious consideration (y)
Click to expand...

There is more to image quality than sharpness. Have a look here http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_17-85_4-5p6_is_usm_c16/page3.asp for a demo of what Canon's DPP Raw processing software can do for image quality (if you don't know it, it came with the camera, update free to the latest version from Canon website).

It corrects CA, distortion and vignetting with custom profiles generated by the Exif data in your image files, but only works with Canon lenses. I wouldn't mind betting that the end result from your kit lens with DPP, would be better than any third party lens can manage. However, if you want f/2.8 that's a bit different.

I think you'll be surprised at what DPP can do (y)
 
HoppyUK said:
There is more to image quality than sharpness. Have a look here http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_17-85_4-5p6_is_usm_c16/page3.asp for a demo of what Canon's DPP Raw processing software can do for image quality (if you don't know it, it came with the camera, update free to the latest version from Canon website).

It corrects CA, distortion and vignetting with custom profiles generated by the Exif data in your image files, but only works with Canon lenses. I wouldn't mind betting that the end result from your kit lens with DPP, would be better than any third party lens can manage. However, if you want f/2.8 that's a bit different.

I think you'll be surprised at what DPP can do (y)
Click to expand...

Yep Hoppy, as I had already acknowledged, there IS more to a lens, and therefore image quality, than sharpness. And yep, Hoppy, I am familiar with Canon's DPP Raw software which came with my camera, but I choose to use PS CS4 instead. And yep again; no amount of software will make up for the difference between a f3.5-5.6 and a constant f2.8.
 
Nifkin said:
Yep Hoppy, as I had already acknowledged, there IS more to a lens, and therefore image quality, than sharpness. And yep, Hoppy, I am familiar with Canon's DPP Raw software which came with my camera, but I choose to use PS CS4 instead. And yep again; no amount of software will make up for the difference between a f3.5-5.6 and a constant f2.8.
Click to expand...

Then I am sorry to have taken up so much of your time.
 
:)
 
HoppyUK said:
Then I am sorry to have taken up so much of your time.
Click to expand...

Please don't be! Sorry if my last post came across as a bit abrupt; didn't mean to. You're quite right in pointing out the virtues of Canon's DPP software; plenty of friends use it and from what I can tell it's a pretty amazing package considering it's really just an OEM freebie.

Thing is, I'm aware of the the options available for fixing up my pics post-shot, but I'm really looking for a lens that improves upon the image quality of the kit lens I have. From all the posts I've read here and elsewhere, there tends to be a bit of a negative attitude towards thrid-party lenses, and I'm not sure if it's entirely justified. I just wanted to hear from people that have used the Tamron lens mentioned to see whether they think it's a worthy upgrade from the EF-S 18-55 f3.5-5.6, or if it really would be better to save up my pennies for the EF-S 17-55 f2.8.
 
Nifkin said:
Please don't be! Sorry if my last post came across as a bit abrupt; didn't mean to. You're quite right in pointing out the virtues of Canon's DPP software; plenty of friends use it and from what I can tell it's a pretty amazing package considering it's really just an OEM freebie.

Thing is, I'm aware of the the options available for fixing up my pics post-shot, but I'm really looking for a lens that improves upon the image quality of the kit lens I have. From all the posts I've read here and elsewhere, there tends to be a bit of a negative attitude towards thrid-party lenses, and I'm not sure if it's entirely justified. I just wanted to hear from people that have used the Tamron lens mentioned to see whether they think it's a worthy upgrade from the EF-S 18-55 f3.5-5.6, or if it really would be better to save up my pennies for the EF-S 17-55 f2.8.
Click to expand...


Both the Tamron 17-50 and the Canon 17-55 are leagues ahead of the 18-55 IS kit lens. My father has just bought the Tamron and I have recently had some use of a 17-55 when I was deciding whether to buy that or the 24-105.
IS is lovely but comes at a price obviously. If you are on a budget you should not be put off by the Tamron, it's a lovely lens.

If it were me.....I would save for the Canon, not because I don't want t 3rd party lens, or because I feel the Canon is worth the extra for IQ, but purely because I gain alot of benefit in my shots from IS.
 
Nifkin said:
Please don't be! Sorry if my last post came across as a bit abrupt; didn't mean to. You're quite right in pointing out the virtues of Canon's DPP software; plenty of friends use it and from what I can tell it's a pretty amazing package considering it's really just an OEM freebie.

Thing is, I'm aware of the the options available for fixing up my pics post-shot, but I'm really looking for a lens that improves upon the image quality of the kit lens I have. From all the posts I've read here and elsewhere, there tends to be a bit of a negative attitude towards thrid-party lenses, and I'm not sure if it's entirely justified. I just wanted to hear from people that have used the Tamron lens mentioned to see whether they think it's a worthy upgrade from the EF-S 18-55 f3.5-5.6, or if it really would be better to save up my pennies for the EF-S 17-55 f2.8.
Click to expand...

No worries bud :)

I don't think there is a negative attitude to third party lenses here. The reality is that the only reason to buy third party is because they are cheaper - they are not as good.

Sometimes the differences are slight, or in areas/features that are not important to you, in which case they are a bargain. One of the reasons I buy Canon is purely because you can use the aberrations corrections facility in DPP.
 
HoppyUK said:
The reality is that the only reason to buy third party is because they are cheaper - they are not as good.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm. Do you not think the part of the reason third party stuff is a bit cheaper is not simply because it's not as good, but because, in part, you're paying for the Canon name?

That said, if Canon had a non-IS version of the 17-55 I'd buy it, even if it were £100 more expensive than Tamron's 17-50; just a pity Canon don't make one!
 
The definition of 'good' varies!

I don't actually think you do pay for the name, but even if you do, that is obviously a valuable 'feature' to some people. It's not just a name, it's also reassurance that the product will work 100% now and in the future, and has not been reverse-engineered.

Some of the cheapest lenses you can get are Canon branded, and they are very good optically, and exceptional value - kit lens 18-55 IS, 55-250 IS for example.
 
HoppyUK said:
Some of the cheapest lenses you can get are Canon branded, and they are very good optically, and exceptional value - kit lens 18-55 IS, 55-250 IS for example.
Click to expand...

Actually, I rate the 55-250 IS, but not the 18-55 IS, hence the thread! I really hunger for a wider aperture at the standard zoom level; 3.5 to 5.6 really doesn't do it for me! I'm sure I'll keep my 18-55 IS as a back up, but want something a bit classier and faster as my standard walkaround lens.
 
HoppyUK said:
The definition of 'good' varies!

I don't actually think you do pay for the name, but even if you do, that is obviously a valuable 'feature' to some people. It's not just a name, it's also reassurance that the product will work 100% now and in the future, and has not been reverse-engineered.

Hi Richard,

I do think a lot of people forget that part !!!!
C
Click to expand...
 
Go for the Tamron. I did,and can't fault it. Depends what you shoot, but I have never found the need for IS and really doubt I ever will. Image wise, reports say they are very similar, Canon edges it out in focussing, but that is pretty much it. Most reviews agree on that, but Canon does have better quality control, some people have had issues with Sigma and Tamron leses, but I cannot fault mine.

Sharp, good colour reproduction and decent build quality for half the price. Really just go for the Tamron, or alternatively hire both out and see for yourself, do your normal shooting with both lenses, and see if the Canon really offers you more.

You can get a second hand Tamron on these very forums for about £220 second hand, and will keep that value if you sell it on further down the line.

If you want to check some images taken in more extreme conditions check out the gig I did of Bloc Party last week.

http://www.carlspringphotography.co.uk/Carl_Spring_Photography/Bloc_Party_Lincoln.html

hard conditions for focussing, and the images are tack sharp from this lens.
 
Excellent shots, Ding! Can I ask what your camera/lens settings were for that gig? I think I am leaning towards the Tamron; I am aware of the fact that, coz it's a third party lens in may be rendered obsolete some time in the future, but, like you said, if it's cared for it'd easily keep it's resale value. There's also the fact that both the Tamron and the Canon lenses are APS-C, which means if I did make the jump to FF I'd have to get rid of both anyway! :bonk::bat::bang:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top