p.1 #1 · 17-55 IS vs Tamron 17-50 which is sharper?
To those who have actual experience of both, not interested in the virtues of IS, which is actually sharper? Has better contrast?
I have a Tam 17-50 I considered to be a good copy, but it either doesn't completely suit, or isn't quite good enough for my new 450D/Xsi sensor
I'm getting good, but unspectacular results, while my 70-300 IS and 35 f2 for example are giving me sharper, crisper results. I'm also struggling for accurate focus on distant objects at 17mm, even using the centre AF point only.
Is the 17-55IS REALLY going to be worth the 100% (or more) extra? I am talking real gritty pixel peeping here, my standards are very high
p.1 #3 · 17-55 IS vs Tamron 17-50 which is sharper?
My 17-50 is comparable to the results from my 50mm 1.8, perhaps even edging it out at 2.8. For a budget zoom to match a prime, that's pretty damn good.
p.1 #4 · 17-55 IS vs Tamron 17-50 which is sharper?
Esquire08 wrote:
If your 70-300 is producing sharper images, I would say your 17-50 is a dud.
I just got the 17-50 yesterday and it is a dream at even f/2.8.
That's the thing. On my 400D the 17-50 was fine, very good in fact but it either doesn't quite suit the 450D sensor or the sensor is too good for it, that' why I'm asking about the 17-55IS (hope I get an answer to that question)
p.1 #5 · 17-55 IS vs Tamron 17-50 which is sharper?
dhphoto wrote:
I'm also struggling for accurate focus on distant objects at 17mm, even using the centre AF point only.
Is the 17-55IS REALLY going to be worth the 100% (or more) extra? I am talking real gritty pixel peeping here, my standards are very high.
David
That's very interesting, because it's kind of the same trouble I have with my Tamron 17-35 (350D). OK, sorry, I know it's a different lens, but our results sound similar. I get rather mushy details. Center is OK. I even sent it back to Tamron twice and they supposedly calibrated it.
I guess it's a little better now and it's fine for some types of shots, but it has me leery of the 17-50 and longing for the 17-55.
Your statement about gritty pixel peeping and very high standards, makes me think that you'll regret not getting the 17-55 if you have anything less than superb results with the Tamron.
The jury is still out for me on the 17-50 and I don't think I'd buy another without trying it and closely examining the images. I'm getting tired of having to send lenses back.
p.1 #6 · 17-55 IS vs Tamron 17-50 which is sharper?
ange wrote:
That's very interesting, because it's kind of the same trouble I have with my Tamron 17-35 (350D). OK, sorry, I know it's a different lens, but our results sound similar. I get rather mushy details. Center is OK. I even sent it back to Tamron twice and they supposedly calibrated it.
I guess it's a little better now and it's fine for some types of shots, but it has me leery of the 17-50 and longing for the 17-55.
Your statement about gritty pixel peeping and very high standards, makes me think that you'll regret not getting the 17-55 if you have anything less than superb results with the Tamron.
The jury is still out for me on the 17-50 and I don't think I'd buy another without trying it and closely examining the images. I'm getting tired of having to send lenses back.
I'm considering the option of dumping 1.6 crop entirely and just using my 1D2N and full frame cameras rather than shell out for a 17-55IS. It just seems to make more sense, unless the 17-55 is THAT much better, but as yet I have no opinions.
I'm looking for a GOOD quality travel kit and frankly I could just use my 5D and a couple of primes, but some seem to imply the 17-55 is 'magic', but then others say that the Tamron is very good too (like me up until now)
p.1 #8 · 17-55 IS vs Tamron 17-50 which is sharper?
dhphoto wrote:
I'm considering the option of dumping 1.6 crop entirely and just using my 1D2N and full frame cameras rather than shell out for a 17-55IS. It just seems to make more sense, unless the 17-55 is THAT much better, but as yet I have no opinions.
I'm looking for a GOOD quality travel kit and frankly I could just use my 5D and a couple of primes, but some seem to imply the 17-55 is 'magic', but then others say that the Tamron is very good too (like me up until now)
David
You bring up a point that has crossed my mind regarding the 17-55 and my XT. I hear the 'magic' talk too, but from people with the 30D and 40D. Although they are crop cameras too, they do have an improved focusing system. The system on the XT is known to be somewhat less than flawless and I wonder if I would get the same great results that they get with that lens.
Well, the 5D and primes will certainly do it, as long as it fits the bill as a travel kit. For me, it's not an option. Anything bigger than the XT and one lens, could doom me on some of my hikes, especially in the dead of winter. The XT is a pocket cam next to the 5D.
p.1 #10 · 17-55 IS vs Tamron 17-50 which is sharper?
The Xsi sensor is just so good that I would prefer to stick with the small camera size, but I am still waitng to hear a direct comparison between the two in the OP
p.1 #13 · 17-55 IS vs Tamron 17-50 which is sharper?
I think the 17-55mm IS is worth every penny. I handhold most of the time, and I bet if you took a few shots with both lenses at less than 1/30th of a second, you'd figure out pretty quickly that the 17-55mm is a much more versatile lens.
Of course, if you aren't shooting in low light very much, the differences may not be that apparent.
p.1 #14 · 17-55 IS vs Tamron 17-50 which is sharper?
I think that the lens is worth the price especially for those taking pictures in museums or churches. For people photography, I would chose 35 f/1.4 L. I believe that for longer focusing distances (close to infinity on the scale), 35 f/2.0 is the sharpest.
These are the only lenses, I would consider myself.
p.1 #16 · 17-55 IS vs Tamron 17-50 which is sharper?
Esquire08:
Call me crazy, but that image doesn't look very sharp.
It is not my intention to extol the virtues of the lens, let alone the quality of my picture but have another look at the top-centre part of the image (viewed at 100%). Keep in mind the shutter speed (hand held).
I test my lenses routinely and the only one sharper than this one (in 35-50 mm range) is 70-200 f/4.0 L IS at 135 mm. I am only looking at performance of a lens wide open (not stopped down)
p.1 #20 · 17-55 IS vs Tamron 17-50 which is sharper?
If your 17-50 is soft, it's either a poor copy or poor technique. I've owned a few, and each was just as sharp as my current 17-55, albeit without the flare issues or IS. here's a sample gallery I set up to when I was selling my last copy some time ago:
