Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

My posts · My subscriptions
  

  Previous versions of virgil1612's message #10879181 « Undecided between Canon 15-85mm and Tamron 17-50mm (non VC). »

  

virgil1612
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Undecided between Canon 15-85mm and Tamron 17-50mm (non VC).


Thanks for all the answers!

>>BauerPower
>>I don't own either of those lenses but you will love an f2.8 or faster lens when
>>taking flash photos.

As I said, I'm a beginner. Why will f2.8 help my flash photos?

>>AGeoJo
>>I assume that you are referring to the kit lens with IS, r ight? That kit lens may
>>feel "cheap", plasticky,etc.but you will be surprised that the image quality it
>>generates is actually really good. I doubt that the other two lenses you
>>mentioned would actually deliver better image quality although they have other
>>and more beneficial specification that the kit lens doesn't have, such a wider
>>focal length range or a faster aperture.

Yes, it's the kit lens, 18-55 IS. As I said I'm very satisfied with T3 plus this lens. But looking at the-digital-picture.com, I find that the difference in resolution between either 15-85 or 17-50 2.8 compared to my 18-55 is quite significant. And yes, on top of this one of them is faster, the other has a wider focal length range. Should I understand that the difference in image quality when looking at real photos is much less significant than when looking at charts? And in fact I have a prime, the Canon 50mm. I'm sure it is a very good lens, my problem is that I never felt comfortable using this lens because it's really too long (the equivalent of 80mm on FF) for the kind of casual photos I take.

>>jctriguy
>>I had the VC version of the 17-50 and while I liked the images I got with it the
>>AF was just way too slow for anything moving faster than a walking pace.

Do you know if the speed of AF is the same on VC and non-VC versions?

>>Wahoowa
>>At the time, I felt that 17-55 just wasn't wide enough... 15-85 was an answer
>>to this issue.

I'm mainly using 20 to 30mm for my pictures, that's why I was thinking that 17mm would be enough for me...

>>StillFingerz
>>As for the f2.8 lens, if you need the faster lens, can't use a higher ISO, a flash
>>and perhaps a monopod when shooting indoor in lower light situations, I myself
>>would save a bit more and get the Canon 17-55 f2.8, it's a much better lens,
>>quite sharp, colors/contrast are superb.
>>Both the Canon lenses have the latest IS and fast AF. I gave up on 3rd party
>>zooms awhile back mostly due to the slower AF and the quite often lower overall
>>quality control issues...and IQ on the lower end lenses.

I'm still happy with ISO800 indoors with my T3, if I go with 1600 the prints would still look acceptable but I have this obsession of looking at pixel level and being dissapointed by the noise... Canon 17-55 f2.8 will not happen anytime soon ... Concerning quality control on the Tamron, looking right here on FM, there seems to be a big majority of people very happy with it...

>>Gunzorro
>>I have the 15-85 IS on the 60D and it isn't even close on how much better the IQ and focus accuracy is
>>CW100
>>The Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc is significantly sharper than the Canon 15-85
>>dhphoto
>>+1 the Tamron 17-50 (non-VC) is my most used crop lens, cheap, light, fast, very sharp.
>>Gunzorro
>>It wasn't sharper in my experience. Both my Tamron 17-50 and the Nikon D7000 are gone from my >>gear, while the 60D and 15-85 remain!

So you see what my problem is .

Please keep sending your thoughts!

Thanks!

Virgil.






Aug 14, 2012 at 12:26 PM
virgil1612
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Undecided between Canon 15-85mm and Tamron 17-50mm (non VC).


Thanks for all the answers!

>>BauerPower
>>I don't own either of those lenses but you will love an f2.8 or faster lens when
>>taking flash photos.

As I said, I'm a beginner. Why will f2.8 help my flash photos?

>>AGeoJo
>>I assume that you are referring to the kit lens with IS, r ight? That kit lens may
>>feel "cheap", plasticky,etc.but you will be surprised that the image quality it
>>generates is actually really good. I doubt that the other two lenses you
>>mentioned would actually deliver better image quality although they have other
>>and more beneficial specification that the kit lens doesn't have, such a wider
>>focal length range or a faster aperture.

Yes, it's the kit lens, 18-55 IS. As I said I'm very satisfied with T3 plus this lens. But looking at the-digital-picture.com, I find that the difference in resolution between either 15-85 or 17-50 2.8 compared to my 18-55 is quite significant. And yes, on top of this one of them is faster, the other has a wider focal length range. Should I understand that the difference in image quality when looking at real photos is much less significant than when looking at charts? And in fact I have a prime, the Canon 50mm. I'm sure it is a very good lens, my problem is that I never felt comfortable using this lens because it's really too long (the equivalent of 80mm on FF) for the kind of casual photos I take.

>>jctriguy
>>I had the VC version of the 17-50 and while I liked the images I got with it the AF was just way too slow >>for anything moving faster than a walking pace.

Do you know if the speed of AF is the same on VC and non-VC versions?

>>Wahoowa
>>At the time, I felt that 17-55 just wasn't wide enough... 15-85 was an answer to this issue.

I'm mainly using 20 to 30mm for my pictures, that's why I was thinking that 17mm would be enough for me...

>>StillFingerz
>>As for the f2.8 lens, if you need the faster lens, can't use a higher ISO, a flash and perhaps a monopod >>when shooting indoor in lower light situations, I myself would save a bit more and get the Canon 17-55 >>f2.8, it's a much better lens, quite sharp, colors/contrast are superb.
>>Both the Canon lenses have the latest IS and fast AF. I gave up on 3rd party zooms awhile back mostly >>due to the slower AF and the quite often lower overall quality control issues...and IQ on the lower end >>lenses.

I'm still happy with ISO800 indoors with my T3, if I go with 1600 the prints would still look acceptable but I have this obsession of looking at pixel level and being dissapointed by the noise... Canon 17-55 f2.8 will not happen anytime soon ... Concerning quality control on the Tamron, looking right here on FM, there seems to be a big majority of people very happy with it...

>>Gunzorro
>>I have the 15-85 IS on the 60D and it isn't even close on how much better the IQ and focus accuracy is
>>CW100
>>The Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc is significantly sharper than the Canon 15-85
>>dhphoto
>>+1 the Tamron 17-50 (non-VC) is my most used crop lens, cheap, light, fast, very sharp.
>>Gunzorro
>>It wasn't sharper in my experience. Both my Tamron 17-50 and the Nikon D7000 are gone from my >>gear, while the 60D and 15-85 remain!

So you see what my problem is .

Please keep sending your thoughts!

Thanks!

Virgil.






Aug 14, 2012 at 12:22 PM
virgil1612
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Undecided between Canon 15-85mm and Tamron 17-50mm (non VC).


Thanks for all the answers!

>>BauerPower
>>I don't own either of those lenses but you will love an f2.8 or faster lens when
>>taking flash photos.

As I said, I'm a beginner. Why will f2.8 help my flash photos?

>>AGeoJo
>>I assume that you are referring to the kit lens with IS, right? That kit lens may feel "cheap", plasticky, >>etc.but you will be surprised that the image quality it generates is actually really good. I doubt that the >>other two lenses you mentioned would actually deliver better image quality although they have other and >>more beneficial specification that the kit lens doesn't have, such a wider focal length range or a faster >>aperture.

Yes, it's the kit lens, 18-55 IS. As I said I'm very satisfied with T3 plus this lens. But looking at the-digital-picture.com, I find that the difference in resolution between either 15-85 or 17-50 2.8 compared to my 18-55 is quite significant. And yes, on top of this one of them is faster, the other has a wider focal length range. Should I understand that the difference in image quality when looking at real photos is much less significant than when looking at charts? And in fact I have a prime, the Canon 50mm. I'm sure it is a very good lens, my problem is that I never felt comfortable using this lens because it's really too long (the equivalent of 80mm on FF) for the kind of casual photos I take.

>>jctriguy
>>I had the VC version of the 17-50 and while I liked the images I got with it the AF was just way too slow >>for anything moving faster than a walking pace.

Do you know if the speed of AF is the same on VC and non-VC versions?

>>Wahoowa
>>At the time, I felt that 17-55 just wasn't wide enough... 15-85 was an answer to this issue.

I'm mainly using 20 to 30mm for my pictures, that's why I was thinking that 17mm would be enough for me...

>>StillFingerz
>>As for the f2.8 lens, if you need the faster lens, can't use a higher ISO, a flash and perhaps a monopod >>when shooting indoor in lower light situations, I myself would save a bit more and get the Canon 17-55 >>f2.8, it's a much better lens, quite sharp, colors/contrast are superb.
>>Both the Canon lenses have the latest IS and fast AF. I gave up on 3rd party zooms awhile back mostly >>due to the slower AF and the quite often lower overall quality control issues...and IQ on the lower end >>lenses.

I'm still happy with ISO800 indoors with my T3, if I go with 1600 the prints would still look acceptable but I have this obsession of looking at pixel level and being dissapointed by the noise... Canon 17-55 f2.8 will not happen anytime soon ... Concerning quality control on the Tamron, looking right here on FM, there seems to be a big majority of people very happy with it...

>>Gunzorro
>>I have the 15-85 IS on the 60D and it isn't even close on how much better the IQ and focus accuracy is
>>CW100
>>The Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc is significantly sharper than the Canon 15-85
>>dhphoto
>>+1 the Tamron 17-50 (non-VC) is my most used crop lens, cheap, light, fast, very sharp.
>>Gunzorro
>>It wasn't sharper in my experience. Both my Tamron 17-50 and the Nikon D7000 are gone from my >>gear, while the 60D and 15-85 remain!

So you see what my problem is .

Please keep sending your thoughts!

Thanks!

Virgil.






Aug 14, 2012 at 12:19 PM
virgil1612
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Undecided between Canon 15-85mm and Tamron 17-50mm (non VC).


Thanks for all the answers!

>>BauerPower
>>I don't own either of those lenses but you will love an f2.8 or faster lens when taking flash photos.

As I said, I'm a beginner. Why will f2.8 help my flash photos?

>>AGeoJo
>>I assume that you are referring to the kit lens with IS, right? That kit lens may feel "cheap", plasticky, >>etc.but you will be surprised that the image quality it generates is actually really good. I doubt that the >>other two lenses you mentioned would actually deliver better image quality although they have other and >>more beneficial specification that the kit lens doesn't have, such a wider focal length range or a faster >>aperture.

Yes, it's the kit lens, 18-55 IS. As I said I'm very satisfied with T3 plus this lens. But looking at the-digital-picture.com, I find that the difference in resolution between either 15-85 or 17-50 2.8 compared to my 18-55 is quite significant. And yes, on top of this one of them is faster, the other has a wider focal length range. Should I understand that the difference in image quality when looking at real photos is much less significant than when looking at charts? And in fact I have a prime, the Canon 50mm. I'm sure it is a very good lens, my problem is that I never felt comfortable using this lens because it's really too long (the equivalent of 80mm on FF) for the kind of casual photos I take.

>>jctriguy
>>I had the VC version of the 17-50 and while I liked the images I got with it the AF was just way too slow >>for anything moving faster than a walking pace.

Do you know if the speed of AF is the same on VC and non-VC versions?

>>Wahoowa
>>At the time, I felt that 17-55 just wasn't wide enough... 15-85 was an answer to this issue.

I'm mainly using 20 to 30mm for my pictures, that's why I was thinking that 17mm would be enough for me...

>>StillFingerz
>>As for the f2.8 lens, if you need the faster lens, can't use a higher ISO, a flash and perhaps a monopod >>when shooting indoor in lower light situations, I myself would save a bit more and get the Canon 17-55 >>f2.8, it's a much better lens, quite sharp, colors/contrast are superb.
>>Both the Canon lenses have the latest IS and fast AF. I gave up on 3rd party zooms awhile back mostly >>due to the slower AF and the quite often lower overall quality control issues...and IQ on the lower end >>lenses.

I'm still happy with ISO800 indoors with my T3, if I go with 1600 the prints would still look acceptable but I have this obsession of looking at pixel level and being dissapointed by the noise... Canon 17-55 f2.8 will not happen anytime soon ... Concerning quality control on the Tamron, looking right here on FM, there seems to be a big majority of people very happy with it...

>>Gunzorro
>>I have the 15-85 IS on the 60D and it isn't even close on how much better the IQ and focus accuracy is
>>CW100
>>The Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc is significantly sharper than the Canon 15-85
>>dhphoto
>>+1 the Tamron 17-50 (non-VC) is my most used crop lens, cheap, light, fast, very sharp.
>>Gunzorro
>>It wasn't sharper in my experience. Both my Tamron 17-50 and the Nikon D7000 are gone from my >>gear, while the 60D and 15-85 remain!

So you see what my problem is .

Please keep sending your thoughts!

Thanks!

Virgil.






Aug 13, 2012 at 05:00 PM
virgil1612
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Undecided between Canon 15-85mm and Tamron 17-50mm (non VC).


Thanks for all the answers!

>>BauerPower
>>I don't own either of those lenses but you will love an f2.8 or faster lens when taking flash photos.

As I said, I'm a beginner. Why will f2.8 help my flash photos?

>>AGeoJo
>>I assume that you are referring to the kit lens with IS, right? That kit lens may feel "cheap", plasticky, >>etc.but you will be surprised that the image quality it generates is actually really good. I doubt that the >>other two lenses you mentioned would actually deliver better image quality although they have other and >>more beneficial specification that the kit lens doesn't have, such a wider focal length range or a faster >>aperture.

Yes, it's the kit lens, 18-55 IS. As I said I'm very satisfied with T3 plus this lens. But looking at the-digital-picture.com, I find that the difference in resolution between either 15-85 or 17-50 2.8 compared to my 18-55 is quite significant. And yes, on top of this one of them is faster, the other has a wider focal length range. Should I understand that the difference in image quality when looking at real photos is much less significant than when looking at charts? And in fact I have a prime, the Canon 50mm. I'm sure it is a very good lens, my problem is that I never felt comfortable using this lens because it's really too long (the equivalent of 80mm on FF) for the kind of casual photos I take.

>>jctriguy
>>I had the VC version of the 17-50 and while I liked the images I got with it the AF was just way too slow >>for anything moving faster than a walking pace.

Do you know if the speed of AF is the same on VC and non-VC versions?

>>Wahoowa
>>At the time, I felt that 17-55 just wasn't wide enough... 15-85 was an answer to this issue.

I'm mainly using 20 to 30mm for my pictures, that's why I was thinking that 17mm would be enough for me...

StillFingerz
>>As for the f2.8 lens, if you need the faster lens, can't use a higher ISO, a flash and perhaps a monopod >>when shooting indoor in lower light situations, I myself would save a bit more and get the Canon 17-55 >>f2.8, it's a much better lens, quite sharp, colors/contrast are superb.
>>Both the Canon lenses have the latest IS and fast AF. I gave up on 3rd party zooms awhile back mostly >>due to the slower AF and the quite often lower overall quality control issues...and IQ on the lower end >>lenses.

I'm still happy with ISO800 indoors with my T3, if I go with 1600 the prints would still look acceptable but I have this obsession of looking at pixel level and being dissapointed by the noise... Canon 17-55 f2.8 will not happen anytime soon ... Concerning quality control on the Tamron, looking right here on FM, there seems to be a big majority of people very happy with it...

Gunzorro
>>I have the 15-85 IS on the 60D and it isn't even close on how much better the IQ and focus accuracy is
CW100
>>The Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc is significantly sharper than the Canon 15-85
dhphoto
>>+1 the Tamron 17-50 (non-VC) is my most used crop lens, cheap, light, fast, very sharp.
Gunzorro
>>It wasn't sharper in my experience. Both my Tamron 17-50 and the Nikon D7000 are gone from my >>gear, while the 60D and 15-85 remain!

So you see what my problem is .

Please keep sending your thoughts!

Thanks!

Virgil.






Aug 13, 2012 at 04:39 PM



  Previous versions of virgil1612's message #10879181 « Undecided between Canon 15-85mm and Tamron 17-50mm (non VC). »