Tamron vs. Canon lens

How do Tamron's best lenses compare to Canon L lenses?

For an indicative quantification of the comparisons, take a look at: <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/">Fred Miranda</a>. You can also look at www.photozone.de if you want reviews.

Don't know. I onlu use canon stuff. Compatability.

 

I don't want an oops at a very important event.

 

I believe Canon stuff goes with Canon stuff.

 

I gotba lot more on my mind at an event than equip. I demand it do what it's supposed to

do.

 

My take.

I've found reviews at this site to be helpful:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/

 

I've only recently aquired an L lens, and I've never owned a top-of-the-line Tamron, so I can't give you much personal experience with the comparison you want. However my personal impressions owning mid-level Canon and Tamron lenses is that the Tamrons feel physically cheaper (more plastic, and looser connections of parts), focus slower, but produce comparable images.

I've got the 28-75 f/2.8 lens and find it to be a really great lens. Build quality, not completely on par with Canon's "L" lens series, but optically, pretty damn good.

I go with the five points Bill Clark mentioned, and add: As the studio has just bought a truck load of Canon gear, if there is an `oops` that gives a lot more clout to get it fixed quickly and efficiently, than if we had bought third party lenses.

 

WW

AFAIK the only Tamron compatibility issue relates to their newest lens - the 28-300 VC (vibration compensation) - which does not operate VC with some older Canon bodies: however, this is a consumer zoom, not a top flight lens. Otherwise the compatibility record of Tamron lenses is excellent.

 

The Tamron lenses I put on the "consider against the best Canon alternative" list are the 90 and 180mm macros (both arguably optically superior to the Canons) and the 28-75 f/2.8 (very close to the 24-70 f/2.8 L optically, but much cheaper, smaller and lighter - you can afford to have a spare as backup). With today's top Tamron lenses (SP Adaptall lenses were built like tanks with butter smooth focus - arguably superior to modern Canons) you lose a little in build quality against the Canons and none of them boast speedy USM AF. However, if those factors don't dominate your purchase decision, you may want the Tamrons in preference.

Suggestions re: compatibility are red herrings: Tamron's EOS compatibility is not an issue.

 

Like Mark U I think the IQ of the Tamron 90 and 180 are superb, although I haven't tried their Canon equivalents. Both are optically as good as Canon's EF 50mm and EF-S 60mm macros, which I do use. Their build is better than the 50mm (which is just a notch above that of Canon's 50mm f/1.8), and comparable to that of the 60mm. Neither is built nearly as well as the two "L"'s with which I'm familiar, but they're not comparably priced either. Their build seems comparable to Canon's medium grade lenses.

 

In summary, I would guess Tamron's best lenses are optically competitive with Canon's "L" and medium grade lenses, but their build is unquestionably below the pro level of "L" lenses. However, I've never tried Tamron's 300mm f/2.8, which is probably its flagship offering.

 

More to the point, its not advisable to make a decision based on a whole make of lenses. It always comes down to comparisons of particular models. If you're interested in a particular Tamron lens, you are best advised to research its capabilities and see if you consider it a reasonable value vs. its "L" competitor.

 

Looked at from the opposite side of this issue, the worst that can happen if you consistently buy Canon "L" glass is that occasionally you might pay more than you have to for what you need, but at least you shouldn't have any problem recouping your extra costs when and if you decide to sell your "L" glass.

 

According to Bob Atkins' self-reported survey data, Tamron lenses' reliability is lower than that of Canon's but above that of Sigma's:

 

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/lens_defect_survey.html

I am using the Tamron 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 lens as the only lens on my new EOS 400D (European model because my Digital Rebel got stolen while in Europe and I needed a quick replacement). I love the lens. It meets my needs, produces excellent pictures, and - above all - doesn't force me to change lenses all the time and get dust on the sensor. Highly recommended.

I think I'd look at the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 ahead of the Tamron prime - a zoom with almost the IQ of the Canon 300 f/2.8 L, and a sport shooter's dream.

For my Canon Rebel XTi I bought all Tamron lenses. I have the Tamron 24-135mm, 17-35mm, 90mm macro, and 200-500mm. All lenses are very sharp and have good color. All except the 90mm prime have more contrast when stopped down a bit. For the price I believe I get better optical performance than the non-L lenses from Canon at a very good price. The Tamron lenses are a little slower and noisier than lenses that have hypersonic or ultrasonic AF. Also most of Tamron lenses do not have Image Stabilizer. So there are some trade-offs, and it all depends on what you are shooting and what you are willing to pay.

Get a Canon. I had a Sigma, it doesn't work anymore. I had a Tamron, it doesn't work anymore. I have seven Canon lenses, they all work wonderful, thank you. By the way - would you fit Ford spares to a Porche?

Tamron is a fine lens. Overall, they are not as sturdy. Lens for lens, they deliver a tad less optically. But they are good enough for most uses most of the time and cheaper. The question:is the added quality of the Canon worth the added price? That depends on your uses and your pocket size. I have only Canon lenses.... except for a Tamron macro that I got used and for a steal. If I was buying that one new, it would have been a Canon as well.

I've had two Tamron lenses and a bunch of Canon lenses. I currently own the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, the Canon 17-85 IS, 50mm f/1.4 and 70-200mm f/4 IS. I've also owned the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro and the 100-300mm USM.

 

The Tamron takes much better quality pictures than Canon's 17-85mm IS. Tamron's fast aperture (for a zoom lens) is very nice! I've also had the chance to use a Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens for a weekend. This lens was pretty large and heavy compared to the other two lenses. It also displayed more distortion and light fall off compared to the much cheaper Tamron.

 

Canon's ring USM lenses focus MUCH faster and are more quiet than the Tamron. I actually prefer the Tamron lens to my current 17-85mm IS, but the Tamron broke (it's in the shop being repaired under warranty). :( It fits very snuggly with my body and I broke the zoom coupling while removing and installing it. It seems pretty well built, but I'll be sure to use the zoom lock in the future when installing and removing the lens.

 

I can't remember ever reading or hearing of Tamron compatibility issues, but I read of quality control and compatibility problems with Sigma all over the net.

 

I would buy another Tamron in an instant, however I really do wish they would come up with a better focus system, like Canon's USM or Sigma's HSM. My biggest gripe with my Tamron lens is poor AF performance.