william_bell2 Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Which would you rather have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_smith4 Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 The Tamron. In fact, I own it. f2.8 is dead handy and the overall image quality is excellent. This lens is on par with old primes I've tested it against for overall sharpness and a bit better color fringing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdigi Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Do you mean the 17-55 2.8 IS? Are you talking if money is no object? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william_bell2 Posted March 6, 2008 Author Share Posted March 6, 2008 No, I meant the 18-55 IS, but if you have an opinion about the Tamron vs. the 17-55 IS, lay it on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danield Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 The Tamron, no doubts. The 18-55 has IS and seems to be pretty sharp but the Tamron is the serious lens here. There's nothing that can replace a wide aperture, this link http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_17-50_review4.html makes it pretty clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wes_baker1 Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 A better comparison would be with the Canon 17-55 f2.8, unless you're locked in to a certain price range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam_gifford Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 The tamron ($420) ought to be better, when its over twice the price of the canon($175) lens. b&h pricing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken munn Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Consider a third alternative (is that good grammar?) Sigma 18-50 f2.8. Same price as the Tamron (at B&H). I'm very impressed with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbert Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 I think you need to decide based on your overall system. Every serious photographer should have at least one fast lens, ie f2.8 or faster to exploit shallow depth of field, but that might be in the 24-70 range or a prime such as the 50 f1.8 or the 85 f1.8 for portraiture. In this case the 18-55 IS might be a nice general lens for travel, wide angle landscapes, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbroderick Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 The Tamron. It's a good walkaround lens on a 1.6-crop camera, and the reasonable aperture makes it usable in a variety of situations (including those that move quickly). The only place I can see an advantage with the 18-55 IS is shooting a static scene with limited camera support (e.g. off the top of a fire tower where the whole tower is swaying in the wind and a tripod won't help much). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielransom Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Not a reasonable comparison. Something better would be the Canon EFS IS 17-85mm 4-5.6, at around the same price as the Tamron. It was my best walkaround until I bought the Canon EFS IS 17-55mm 2.8 ( at about $1000.) The Canon 17-85 is slower, but has wonderful picture quality, especially outdoors, or indoors with flash. Great quality, faster fstop lenses above 3.5 get very expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbert Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 It is amazing how many negative opinions there are on the new 18-55 IS. However, they seem to be all based on speculation. As far as I can tell, no one above has actually used the new 18-55 IS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 Personally I'd rather have the EF-S 18-55 3.5-5.6 IS USM. It's less than have the price of the Tammy, has IS and would make a nice petite travel/hiking optic. Besides I already have fast primes and the 17-55 2.8 IS USM so I'd want something different. The 18-55 IS has tested surprisingly well at Pop Photo and seems to be optically improved over the earlier variant. Plus I hate that spinning MF ring on the tammy... Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see. - Robert Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amlan Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 I had the Canon for a while to pair up with my 30D and then found that indoor shooting was frustrating ... returned and got the Tamron and never looked back. Of course its more expensive the Canon, but a cheap, fast, quality zoom doesn't exist. Its razor sharp even at f/2.8 and that helps a lot when you know you don't need to stop a lens down to get good results. <br><br>With Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS, the extra things you will have are the IS, FTM focus - there will be very small or no difference in IQ - and all these will come for about $900. Do you need those extra features ? You are the only person who can answer that. You can see some <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=400&Camera=396&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398&CameraComp=396&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0"> comparison here</a>. <br><br>The Tamron would be an excellent all purpose walk-around lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 For stationary objects in extremely low light without support I'd prefer the Canon. For everything else I'd prefer the Tamron. You really need to state your shooting style and intended application. Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_karthauser Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 I DO have an 18-55 IS and have had since I bought my 40D in november last year, but I've possibly used it once and that is is. The reason? It's just too slow. I always choose my 28 f1.8 and 50 f1.8. Everytime. The extra speed definitely is a whooping benefit over the IS at f5.6 on the long end. IS may be useful for static shots but I shoot a lot of BMX shots usually at dusk with wireless flash where IS is fairly limited. Hope this helps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now