Canon USM vs. tamron, tokina

I need to start upgrading to some 2.8 lenses. I just purchased the canon L 2.8

70-200. I would love to buy all "L" glass, but financially, I think the wife

would have me sleeping in the street if I bought another. I don't believe there

are options for canon 2.8 lenses which aren't L, so that leaves me with choosing

tamron or tokina. My main concern with these is focusing speed, as this tends

to be a pet peeve of mine. Does anyone have any opinions as to whether or not

tamron or tokinas are significantly slower than their canon counterparts?

Look at Sigma lenses with HSM AF motors. The performance of HSM is comparable to ring USM, almost. Not all sigma lenses have it though.

 

Do a search on Tamron and Tokina in the focal length you are looking at. While they have offerings in wide to normal zoom, I recall lot's of objections to the Af performance or maybe reliability. But like many lenses if you get a good copy your golden.

 

There are canon non L lenses at 2.8 but guess what, they are just as expensive as L so you're basically right. My 17-55 2.8LIS is an example at $900.

 

What focal lengths do you need? What do you shoot mostly? Perhaps a mix of some primes with zoom would make more sense.

 

We also need to know what camera body you are using, is it FF or 1.6 crop?

 

I tend to use L for zooms, and non L for primes as the IQ is comparalbe and to me the L primes are overkill. Non L primes are quite a bargain and most of them focus fairly fast, plus 1.8 aperture is typical.

Bob, thanks for the response. To answer your questions; I have a 30D body, getting ready to purchase a 20D back up. Both of these are 1.6 crop. The focal ranges I want are a wide angle (i.e. 17-50 or so) and a midrange zoom (28-135 or so). The idea of primes does not appeal to me because I don't like to carry a lot of weight (I do some landscape/wildlife). I have never heard much good about sigma but that seems to be changing in recent months.

I have heard the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 is a very decent lens with excellent image quality. I actually looked into getting this lens for myself but settled on the 17-55 Canon only because I had extra to spend on it at the time. But if I had a budget and wanted to spend more on other items or just save some extra cash I would definitely get the Tamron 17-50.

 

As for the 28-135 range I am not sure what third party lens would be a good choice to be honest as I never really look at this range of lens for myself. My mixture of lenses cover that range.

 

I'm certain someone else here may be able to help you more in that range but I do agree that the "L" lenses and others with L quality are quite expensive and I could never afford them all either.

I've got a 20D, and the Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM provides comparable performance in both

focus speed and image quality to a friend's 70-200/2.8 L in field use. I haven't used the 17-

55/2.8IS, but I own a Tamron 17-50/2.8, and the IQ and focus speed have both been good

enough to keep me happy. I suspect the 17-55/2.8 IS is probably quicker-focusing, though

it's also a lot more expensive and a bit heavier.

I own the 17-55mm lens and it is excellent and MUCH heavier but I have tried the 17-50 Tamron and I honestly do like the lens and the one I tested was very nice and sharp. I would recommend it for anyone wishing to save money but still have great quality.

 

I actually looked into getting the 70-200 Sigma as well and from images I had seen it was very nice plus the black instead of white of Canons L's attracted me to it. I did end up splurging on the 70-200mm 2.8IS and I do love it and would never get rid of it now that I own it but it was the most I spent so far on any camera gear although well worth it.

 

I am not a Canon snob ;) and would gladly buy third party lenses if they did their job well and some do this! The one thing that bothers me most of all is the fact I order my equipment online and the quality control of many third party lenses is not as good as Canon and that is scary for me. Just hate the hassle if I have to go start sending lenses back.

 

If I bought third party lenses though, I'd choose the following zooms:

 

Tamron 17-50mm 2.8

 

or

 

go wider Sigma 10-20mm or Tokina 12-24

 

and

 

Tamron 28-75mm 2.8

 

And since you already have the Canon 70-200L I think this would cover you until you need to go longer.

I own a 20d and my wife has a digital rebel 400d. I am in the market for similar lenses. I looked for comparison info by others first, but couldn't find sufficient info posted on the web. I recently went into 2 stores and took 50plus photos with (a) Canon 17-40L, (b) all-new Canon 18-55 IS, © Tamron 17-50 f2.8, and (d) Tokina 16-50 f2.8. I didn't include the comparable Sigma because it reportedly has had many copies with focusing problems. Then I spent many hours on my computer equalizing the exposure, then comparing the photos at 100% and 200%. I thought all were fairly close, which is shocking.

 

The Canon 18-55 IS is a $175 to $200 lens. One copy was a little lower in resolution than the others, but a second copy was quite competitive. On some shots, it had better resolution and higher contrast than the other three. It's AF seemed to be faster than the Tokina and Tamron, and was about equal to the Canon 17-40L. It had bonuses of IS and being the lightest and smallest. One website had previously done MTF measurements and also reported that it was amazingly sharp .... much better than it's predecessor.

 

In all, I think the Canon 17-40 was the best overall by a very small margin. It did everything well and had the best color with the whitest whites. Resolution on every shot was competitive with the sharpest of the other lenses. It seemed to have the least distortion, though I couldn't measure it, and had the best AF and best manual focus. It definitely maintained the best focus on the SIDES of the picture, while the Tamron and Tokina and cheaper Canon were sometimes focused in the center, but fuzzy on the sides. I don't know what caused that.

 

The Tokina 16-50 was my 2nd favorite by a very small margin. It had great ergonomics and good manual focusing, like the Canon 17-40. It was sharpest at the moderate telephoto end. One small flaw was that it back-focused in two of my shots.

 

The Tamron was about equal to the Tokina in resolution, being slightly better at the wide end. It also had very low distortion at the wide end. It was lighter and more compact than the Tokina and Canon 17-40L. The ergonomics of the rings were not quite as good, but it was not really noticeable unless nitpicking.

 

I didn't do a scientific comparison with a tripod and controlled in-store lighting. I had to throw out some photos because I discovered the focus and framing was different from one lens to another. However, the remaining photos that showed valid comparisons showed to me that all, excepting the first copy of the cheap Canon 18-55, were very sharp and close to equal. I already own a 17-40L. I'm going to buy the Canon 18-55 IS for my wife, without reservations. IS is more important to her than f2.8 My only insurance will be to buy two copies, test for the best, and then return the other copy. If she needed f2.8, I'd get the Tamron because I didn't a $200 difference in the Tokina.

 

I hope this helps.

>>> I need to start upgrading to some 2.8 lenses. (. . . ) I don't believe there are options for canon 2.8 lenses which aren't L, so that leaves me with choosing tamron or tokina. <<<

 

I am not wishing to start the `debate`: but simply wish to draw your attention to the fact that there are many fast (sub F2.8) Canon lenses, most are prime.

 

There is an assumption in the original post which precludes all these lenses from contention, why?

 

WW

"There is an assumption in the original post which precludes all these lenses from contention, why?" In his first repost he says, "The idea of primes does not appeal to me because..." Since then the discussion has been about zooms.

 

The Canon 17-55 f/2.8 adds the faster ring type USM, with FTM, and Image Stabilization. It's also sharper at the edges than the third party options. Personally, I think those are good reasons to spend the extra money, but if cost is a big enough issue I would go with the Tamron for a mid-range zoom. The Tamron's also smaller & lighter.

 

Another personal opinion of mine is that in general one should spend a larger portion of their limited resources on the lens they shoot the most with. If the 70-200 is it for you, well and good, but for most people it would probably be a zoom in the 17-50mm range. Not that this will matter to the OP now, but perhaps someone else might agree.

Paul,

 

You must bring your wife up to speed. DSLR is an abreviation for Digital, Sixty Lenses Required ;-)

 

...And don't forget about focus accuracy in your search for more glass.

>>> In his first repost he says, "The idea of primes does not appeal to me because..." <<<

 

Jim, all: I did not `see` that sentence, even though I `read` the whole post.

 

Thanks, sorry, my dumb.

 

WW

I went through a similar decision making process. I considered Canon 17-55mm f2.8 and Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. I did not go for the Caon because of the large size for walkabout, complaints about dust getting inside the lens, and the price. I went for the Tamron because of price, good image quality and overall performance. I knew I was making a trade-off when going with the Tamron in two principal areas: lack of image stabilization and lack of USM. I have a lot of actual experience with the Tamron but not the Canon. The Tamron's sweet spot is at f/4 and above, it is softer at f2.8. The focus hunts when there is not enough contrast or low light. The f/2.8 and ISO 1600 allows me to take pictures without a flash, i.e. more natural, but the keeper rate is low because of the noise (by camera body is Rebel Xti, your mileage may vary). I tested some pictures of still life by mounting the camera on a tripod (iso100, f2.8 or f4) and they were very very sharp. I am root causing some slight front focus issues at f2.8 and 80mm but need to play with the AF point selection to eliminate operator error. Lack of IS has decreased by keeper rate below 1/60s. Lack of USM has not been a significant drawback. Hope that helps.

I have the Tameron 28-75 2.8. Great lens very sharp. I just rented the Canon 17-55 2.8 for a wedding. The Canon did seem to focus faster, it is actually the best lens I have used. It will be the next lens I purchase.