The cheaper wedding zoom - review per request.

[wedding-photography-denver]

Well, as promised to a few who asked me, here is the brief review of the Tamron

17-50/2.8.

 

Firstly, the price is about $450.00 and that is a welcome start in comparison to

the Canon 17-55/IS.

 

I will include a few shots to demonstrate the lens' capabilities, but just know

that it has less contrast than its Canon counterpart. Not much, but less.

 

For sharpness, it compares well. On a realistic use scale of 1 - 10 (10 being

best and also the benchmark of Canons') this scores a solid 9.7 IMO. If it were

more contrasty it would be the equal at 10.

 

Focus accuracy (on the second copy for me) is dead on. However, unlike the

Canon, it displays a tendancy to hunt for a split second in low light (sample

below taken in a dull lit bathroom). It does however lock on to the correct

thing about 98% of the time, which is more consistent than the Canon. One quick

observation is that it speeds up focus to zoom to 40mm - 50mm, lock on, and then

go wide.

 

Distortion control is very good. At least equal to the Canon (see 17mm sample

below).

 

Build is the same as the 28-75. Good, solid enough, but not like L glass and a

little less robust feeling than the EX Sigmas. I have been using the 28-75/2.8

at weddings for about two years with great success and 0 faliures.

 

Noise is a little more than the Canon USM but perfectly quiet when considering

an acustic amplifier like a quiet church with tile floors, stone walls, etc.

 

Overall my reaction to this lens, on a scale of 1 - 10, I would give it a 9.25.

Lacking points for the build/noise/focus and contrast. If you use a 20D/30D, its

a worth while purchase compared to the Canon, IMO, and I am keeping this one.

 

Here then are some samples taken in a dark powder bath by my office (lit by a

single 40w bulb over the sink). All focused on the faucet tip.

 

Hope this helps you making your choices. Best, D.<div></div>

[35mmdelux]

deal. looks good to me.

[ptucci]

Not immediately clear, but this will fit on a 10D.

[JohnWebster]

I have posted this several times before but I can't help myself--I love the Canon 18-55 kit lens that came with the 20D. I use it 90 percent of the time in my wedding photography. Only $130 if you buy it alone. Check out my test.<div></div>

[stephen_lutz]

Stopped down the 18-55 kit lens is pretty good at the long end. The main advantage (and it's a big one) with a 2.8 zoom is that you can stop down a one or two full stops and get a decent shutter speed in good light and not choke off too much light in flash photos.

 

You can also blur out a background and make the subject pop out of the photo with a 2.8 zoom, which is difficult if not impossible with the kit lens. Slow zooms are pretty good performers, particularly when stopped down, but the photos tend to look flat, with little foreground-background separation.

[kchayet]

Yes, agreed.

I've been playin with it some in my store.

I like it, alot! (I shoot nikon, but the results are the same in terms of focusing, etc.)

I think this will be my new wide angle. well, once I get my 80-200 2.8 lol

~Krissy

[aaron_lee___minneapolis__m]

I'm glad to see one of our more experienced shooters looking at these 3rd party lenses. There are plenty of poor 3rd party lenses, but several extremely good ones as well! You can get 2.8 zooms for 1/3 the price of Canon or Nikon, and they are perfect for wedding work.

 

Aaron Lee

[djphoto]

John Webster's Canon 18-55 kit lens may well be stunningly sharp. But the next one off the assembly line may be a dog. One of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned was a garden variety Canon 35-105 f3.5-4.5. It was as sharp as my 35f2 at the 35mm setting, and as sharp as my 85 f1.8 at the 85mm setting. But I wouldn't go out and buy another one just because this particular lens happened to be great.

 

The extra money you pay for a Canon L lens buys you better build and much tighter quality control so that your chances of getting a dog are greatly reduced.

[stephen_lutz]

One other good thing about the kit lens is that it is cheap and fun to shoot. With a rifle. After my Rebel 300 died, I took it and the lens, to the range and shot it with an AR-15 from 150 meters (scoped). It was fun! It went 'poof'!

[jim_gifford]

<referee whistle>

 

15 yard penalty to David for actually purchasing a lens and using it and posting the results.

 

Sheesh. Doesn't anyone know the drill any more? We are supposed to dismiss third-party lenses out of hand without touching them. They're crud. Brand-name lenses are the Only True Way.

 

(Thanks, David, for the assessment and the sample pictures.)

 

Be well,

[jfr]

Even if the 18-55 was a brilliant lens. It is still slow. I only use apertures like that for formals. Compare that to the 17-55 2.8 IS, which you can shoot at ridiculously slow shutter speeds.

[leya216]

What other 3rd party f/2.8 lenses would you well seasoned photographer recommend (ie as a

9 and up in comparison to their canon counterparts)?

[jmichaelc]

Thanks David, i've had my eyes on this one considering it. I currently use the Sigma 15-30 on the wide sides.....a fantastic lens optically but the distortion is something awful. Primes for everything else....so this lens would tie in good for the up to 50mm range which begins the range of my fast primes (50 1.4, 100F2 and now the 200 2.8L)

 

I've got the 28-75 2.8 which is optically great and well built for wedding work and it looks as if this wide is of the same optics which is pretty good for the price when compaired to Canons equilivent.