Not sure if this topic got discussed. Outside of the extra 5mm for canon and the IS, how do these two compare. The parameters are sharpness, bokeh etc. I am looking to get one of the two - leaning towards the tamron for cost benefit. Help me validate the decision or convince me otherwise. I'll be using this on a 40D.
There are many threads on this. I only own the Tamron since this is what I ended up buying. To shorten things up I would say the pros of each are:
Canon (pros):
- Slightly sharper, but not a lot.
- Better autofocus
- IS
- Built better
- Zoom works in the proper direction
Tamron (pros):
- Much cheaper
- A fair amount smaller which was very meaningful to me
This seems to favor the Canon, and the Canon is a better lens. In reality, you won't see much of a difference in photos (from what I have seen). You need to figure out if the price is worth the other differences. I don't believe that the optics are going to be the main decision maker here. For me, I was trying to get a small DSLR to use instead of a point and shoot. The Tamron and the XSi have been perfect for this.
BTW: Optically, you won't see a huge difference between 50mm and 55mm. The longer the lens gets, the less each mm translates to for the FOV.
Don't forget the Tamron comes with a 6 year warranty verses a one year for the Canon. May not seem like much until your Canon lens blows a diaphragm or focus motor two years after you bought it and you have to pay what the Tammy cost new to get it repaired. Downside to the Tammy is field curvature and a rotating focus ring, still a very nice lens for the $$.
Both are optically top-notch. Canon has the edge due to Tammy's field curvatuew (see photozone.de) but not a real issue in 'real world' situations.
With the difference in price you can buy a 100 Macro, or an used 70-200 4L.
IMO the choice is easy :-)
I tried the Tamron before returning it for the Canon. Tamron was sharp, even sharper than the Canon at some focal lengths. However, mine front-focused and I didn't want to deal with calibrating or trying another lens. Additionally I didn't like the slower autofocus or much noisier autofocus. Canon's size wasn't an issue for me.
IS was a draw for me from the tech standpoint, but it has ended up being very welcome for in practice too- I get a lot of late and night shots that I wouldn't otherwise, and it is much more convenient (for me) to carry this lens than a tripod. In self disclosure I'm a bit of a tech addict and still more of an amateur photog, so "newer better bigger more" makes more sense to me than "bokeh saturation color," but the 17-55 is making very nice images that are nearly as good as my 60 macro.
About the Tamron's 17-50mm field curvature... Does anybody who uses this lens on the 40D has troubles with the accuracy of the outer AF points (mainly on the wide side)?
BrianP wrote:
Canon (pros):
- Slightly sharper, but not a lot.
- Better autofocus
- IS
- Built better
- Zoom works in the proper direction
Tamron (pros):
- Much cheaper
- A fair amount smaller which was very meaningful to me
I've owned the Tamron and bought a 17-55 for a look at replacing the 17-50 and sent it back. I would disagree with the above on the following:
Sharpness - there is no difference. In fact, of my copies, my Tamron was sharper, but from what I've seen on multiple reviews, plus my experience, they are equal in resolution.
Build quality - I think the Tamron is honestly the better built lens. The Canon has a little bit of slop in it's construction. The zoom ring feels cheap, the focus ring is scratchy, and there's more barrel wobble than with the Tamron (not that the Tamron feels like a pro build.) I was extremely put off by the 17-55 IS's build quality. For $1000, you should get a lot more.
You also asked about the Tokina 16-50. While I love Tokina lenses (and own two...12-24 and 10-17 fisheye), the 16-50 is not nearly as good as the Tamron optically. It's better built, but it didn't impress optically. It's not bad, it's just not exceptional like the Tammy is.
Daan B wrote:
About the Tamron's 17-50mm field curvature... Does anybody who uses this lens on the 40D has troubles with the accuracy of the outer AF points (mainly on the wide side)?
I haven't noticed any of this when focusing, but I could do some more extreme testing.
Edward Gill wrote:
Don't forget the Tamron comes with a 6 year warranty verses a one year for the Canon.
6 years? The (dutch) store where I bought mine lists it as 1 year + service. Is Tamron taking care of the other 5 years?
Edit: 6 year seems USA only.
Daan B wrote:
About the Tamron's 17-50mm field curvature... Does anybody who uses this lens on the 40D has troubles with the accuracy of the outer AF points (mainly on the wide side)?
I've never noticed it on a 400D or 450D.
The Tamron is just a great great lens. I don't usually go for non-Canon lenses but this is a happy exception. I just wouldn't stump up for the 17-55IS personally, just too expensive for an averagely built EF-S zoom with IS to me.
But then if it was going to be my only short zoom I suppose I might, but it's so much bigger and bulikier than the Tamron I still don't think so
I use the Tamron lens on the 40D while I'm running around shooting PJ style (The other of the 2 cameras I carry with me has the 70-200 2.8), and another 17-50 Tamron lens is on a tripod where we have backgrounds and light set up at the reception for my 2nd photographer. The Tamron lens works really well for our business. I've owned the Canon version, but since I couldn't afford 2 of them, I bought the Tammie. I sold the Canon version since, and bought a 2nd Tamron 17-50. Very happy, no regrets. Those who've taken photos with both and tell you they can tell the difference - it's because "they took" the picture. If I (or any professional photographers that knows what they're doing) show you photos/final prints, you wouldn't be able to tell which prints were taken with which lens. But I'm in it for the business, and I'm practical about it. I use what gets the job done. So consider how much "more" money you're going to make if you use the more expensive one over the other (if you're in it for the business). If Canon's lens isn't going to make any more money for you, then why spend 800 dollars more (bragging rights? C'mon, we're not high schoolers anymore). I get to work on time and just as well with my 10 year old car as I would if I'd had a Corvette. One's just for business, the other is for bragging rights. So you need to decide what the purpose of the lens is for.
It boils down to price and whether or not IS is important to you.
You can rent both from www.lensrentals,com for a reasonable fee and judge for yourself. My choice was the Tamron. I find the xsi and 17-50 to be an exceptional combination.
