Canon 17-85 or Tammy 28-75

JJ!

JJ!

Messages
5,813
Edit My Images
No
I shoot a lot of horse jumping and was previously using a Nikon D60 with 55-200 VR lens which gave good results in good light, which is when I take most of my shots. I have the 50mm for low light work.

Considering these 2 lenses as they provide the sweet spot for me - between 30 & 75 (on a 500D)

How fast does the tammy focus? Will it be quick enough for tracking movement or with the Canon be the better bet?

Any other recommendations for around £300?
 
would be interesting to hear what the canon guys says but love my tamron 28-75, just wish it was a little wider
 
I'm not a quality guru, and haven't tried the Tamron, but I had the Canon for many months.

I ended up getting rid of it due to the fact that it would extend to full zoom even if I held it upside down. A real pain when walking around with it over your shoulder. I ended up having one hand on the end of the lens at all times to hold it in.

I tried the Sigma 24-70 (f2.8) in the camera shop, but they wouldn't budge on the price and it was just too far out of my range at the time, but with hindisght I wish I'd saved up for it.

Someone else here recommended the Sigma 17-70 which is within your price range, but I haven't tried that.

Sorry if it's not that helpful, but if you're near a shop, ask to see a 17-85. Hold it upside down and see what I mean. Of course I could have had a duff lens, but I remember someone somewhere saying that the sliding issue was a problem for that lens. It's just not very walkabout friendly.

That's all in my very humble opinion of course.

-H
 
I had the Canon AF-S 17-85mm lens on a 40D and was very pleased with it. As Harlequin565 says some examples can indeed be prone to "zoom creep" but I never found it to be a problem really. It just looks aesthetically and technically sloppy but does not affect hand-held images.

There seems to be a few of these for sale split from 50D kits from time to time and fetch nearer to £200 so probably a cheaper option than the Tamron if that is of any importance to you.
 
Cheers for the info, seems the Canon is getting more votes here!
 
Autofocus is way too slow for my liking; in anything approaching poor light, it usually just hunts forever without locking onto anything. In good light it's better but is still often slower than me using it on manual focus.

Not got any experience with the Canon so wouldn't be able to compare it. Tammy is alright but hasn't really blown me away like other lenses that I've used/own. Plus, I don't find it wide enough on a FF, I'd find that end highly restricting on a cropped cam.
 
another vote for the canon here. I've not used the tamron but have had the Canon 17-85mm IS since I bought my camera (400D) some 18 months or so ago and I can't fault it. for WA use and short zoom it is great, very sharp and the IS is fast. This is my "Everyday" lens and only gets changed when I need more zoom or I use the 50mm in low light.
 
I have the 17-85mm. It's pretty good for what it is, a short-medium, slow, zoom, with a very useful range. Mine is sharp, but they have serious distortion at the wide end and tend to vignette/show CAs, which can all be fixed in post processing but it's a nuisance. They were overpriced when they first came out, but I'd recommend it if you can get a good deal. There's a review at http://photozone.de/canon-eos/179-canon-ef-s-17-85mm-f4-56-usm-is-test-report--review, which is worth a look.

I got mine as part of a kit and planned to sell/trade it in, but decided to keep it because it works for me as a walk around lens. £300 isn't a big budget, but most of us have to do what we can, with what we can afford! I would prefer something like a 17-55mm, and could live with the loss at the longer end, but that's out of the question right now.
 
Another vote for the Canon here. I have an 17-85 and consider it very under rated on here.
I think with your criteria and budget you will not go wrong.

Find a "white box" ex kit new lens for the best value.
 
I also have the 17-85, don't push it to the end stops and its fine, you may appreciate the 17mm's wider angle.
 
I have owned and used both at the same time, I sold the Canon 17-85 after a couple of weeks. ;)

Compairing the focus, the Canon is faster to lock on due to having USM and it tracks moving subjects well. The Tamron (while taking slightly longer to lock on) was able to track moving subjects just about as well as the Canon. The Tamron's focus motor also produces more noise, but you'll be used to this if you have a Canon 50mm f/1.8.

Build quality wise the Tamron beats the Canon in my eyes, everything felt that little bit stronger and tighter with the Tamron. I personally felt very dissapointed with the EF-S build, so much so that I don't intend to buy another one unless things change.

Image quality goes to the Tamron all day long, colour and contrast were quite even but sharpness levels were noticably better with the Tamron.

The only issues I have with the Tamron are focus noise and that it isn't that wide on a crop sensor camera body, but it will only get moved out of my camera bag when I have the spare funds to upgrade to a Canon "L" equivillant lens.

Just my opinion of course but I hope it helps a bit. (y)
 
JJ! said:
I shoot a lot of horse jumping and was previously using a Nikon D60 with 55-200 VR lens which gave good results in good light, which is when I take most of my shots. I have the 50mm for low light work.

Considering these 2 lenses as they provide the sweet spot for me - between 30 & 75 (on a 500D)

How fast does the tammy focus? Will it be quick enough for tracking movement or with the Canon be the better bet?

Any other recommendations for around £300?
Click to expand...

With that kind of money have you thought about the 2nd hand market, it may open a few more doors on affordable lenses.

FFordes, park camera's, Misfuds, MPD, etc have a look through there ranks of used lenses, or keep and eye on TP.

The 17-85mm has a great focal range, centre sharp through out the focal range, but suffers at both extremes, the price has dropped considerable from the £500 starting price of a few years back, its a average lens, that can take good shots, but not value for the £££'s.
 
I agree - out of the two - the Canon would be my choice. I've had a 17-85mm for a year and a half now - and it's a great lens, although I've recently bought a 17-55mm f2.8 - which is a better lens again - but on top of that I'll be selling them both soon to upgrade to a FF 5d plus lenses...
 
Had the Tammy 28-75 when I bought my 40D and 17-85, I did quite a few test shots at various settings etc, tbh I didn't find much difference between the two quality wise. If I remember AF was just that bit quicker on the canon. I decided to keep the canon because of the IS and my son got inherited the 28 - 75 for his camera.
 
I have used both over the years and if i had to buy either it would be the Tamron as it produces sharper images, has f2.8 and is very light to carry around.
 
Tamron for me every time - sharper images, constant f/2.8. It is a better focal length range on a full-frame body, though - it and a 5D are a very good combination :). On a crop body, the 17-55mm, as alluded to above, is the pick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top