New len's

Andy77

Andy77

Messages
2,543
Name
andy
Edit My Images
No
Do i buy the canon 17-85 is or the tamron 17-50 2.8?????

help apprieciated

thanks :thumbs:
 
if i've learnt anything from reading posts on this site it's that you dont always get a good copy from a third party lens maker, so i'd go for the canon !
 
It depends if you can try before you buy, ive had both of them. The Canon is better built, the Tamron is quite plasticky but you get the 2.8. If your into MTF charts (im not so dont ask!) but the Tamron is apparently quite amazing for the price.
 
The Tamron tamron 17-50 2.8 is a very well regarded lens and it will be better in low light.
I owned the canon 17-85IS for a year and while it's an ok lens, it's not very good in low but it's not bad as a walkabout lens.
I think Tamrons QA is probably better than Sigmas, I owned a Tamron 28-75 2.8 briefly and I didn't have any issues with it except that I couldn't get on without any form of IS/VR.
The same applies to my Tamron 18-270VR.
 
I own the Tamron and recently tried out the Canon 17-85, the canon focuses quicker but distortion and CA at the wide end were shocking compared to the Tamron. I find the Tamron is great indoors and where you need f2.8 for DoF or to get a fast enough shutter speed but I wish it was a bit longer like the Canon.

I think it all depends on what you will be using the lens for mainly, as a walk about the extra length on the Canon and IS will be handy if you have enough light. The Tamron's image quality however is excellent.
 
NOT Canon

I briefly owned Canon and while it was OK after serious work in Lightroom and PS, I couldn't quite get the sharpness and colour and contrast to match the L brick. The IS is great, but decent optics come first.

I've tried friends Tamron. Yes it is not built as well as canon L telephoto (not much worse than 17-85 if not better), but the sharpness wide open is hard to match with any standard zoom. The contrast was also better.

So tamron every day!

Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8 is meant to be even better and built like a tank (indestructible)
 
I have owned both but prefer the older Tamron 17-35, the Canon is a great lens if you have not been introduced to f2.8, if you have you just will not be happy with the results.
the canon tries to put everything it can into one lens but it just does not work unless you just want a kit lens.
 
Might be worth looking at the used market - you could try both and sell on the one you favour least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top