"L" vs Tamron

[cordek]

I've read many tech reports about the new digital lenses from Tamron (ie: 17-

50 and 25-75, 2.8). The reports seem to indicate that the Tamron lenses are as

good as the "L" Canon lenses. Does anyone have practical experience to

share? Do the "L" lens REALLY provide tack sharper results?

Spending the big bucks for marginally better results is a hard gulp. Thanks

[matthias_meixner2]

"digital lenses" cannot be used with full frame or analog cameras. "L" lenses can. Therefore, "digital lenses" are no substitute for "L" lenses.

[brainbubba_motornapkins]

""digital lenses" cannot be used with full frame or analog cameras. "L" lenses can. Therefore, "digital lenses" are no substitute for "L" lenses."

 

Unless you have a digital SLR...

[pto189]

Canon L lenses are designed for professional photographers where marginal superior could cost them a business deal. If you aren't a pro or don't have extra money to burn, stay away from L lenses and buy the Tamron lenses that are good enough for daily use. However, saying Tamron lenses are as good as Canon L lenses is not true. Canon L lens owners know why they want to spend money for the lenses. The key word is as <b>good</b> as. You should spend some time to browse around this forum and to find more information about Tamron lenses and Canon L lenses.

[anson_ko]

For L series lenses, canon put more R&D into design,test, and QA into it and therefore, higher standard. If you going to take picture in the sandstorm/rainforrest, L can take the abuse. Regular lenses cannot. One question you have to ask yourself is, are you taking pictures in that enviroment and do you enlarge the picture to wall size? In absolute term, yes, L lenses are better. If you want/need that quality, go for it. You get what you pay for.

[abqnmusa]

I tested a friends Tamron 17-50 F2.8 against my Canon EF 17-40 F4L. I was considering the Tamron 17-50 for my 400D camera, and used that body to test.

 

The Tamron 17-50 has terrible chromatic aberations at 2.8 / 3.5 and clears up at F4. It was also very soft on the edges at 2.8 / 3.5

 

Multiple shots confirmed this to be the case. The Tamron 17-50 lens may be F2.8 but it is not usable until F4.

 

I did not see the same chromatic aberation in the Canon F4L. The Canon also seems to have more sharpness at F4.

 

Note that all 17mm lenses are soft on the edges until you stop them down. That I expected. The chromatic aberation in the Tamron I did not expect.

[rainer_t]

The Tamron 17-50/2.8 is a DiII lens (therefore can only be used on crop dSLRs), the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is a Di lens (and can therefore be used on fullframe as well).

 

I have both lenses, and optical performance is impressive. You'll be missing USM (AF motor) and FTM (full time manual control) as well as weather sealing. (Note ... not all L lenses are weather sealed).

 

Both of them are very good value for the money.

 

Rainer

[tamas_gaidosch]

I have a Tamron 28-75/2.8 and a Canon 24-105/4L. On sharpness alone the Tamron is on par with the Canon L.

 

My conclusion after using them both quite extensively is that if only image quality is of concern, then the L is not worth 3x the price, because the differences are not that dramatic. However, build, AF speed and image stabilisation of the L lens are so good that I do not use the Tamron anymore.

[bob_mcbob]

I don't want to comment on image quality, but I've always found the build of Tamron lenses extremely "plasticky," even compared to other third party manufacturers. I have used quite a wide range of lenses over the past few years: Sigma EX (very nice), Canon consumer (varies), Canon L (very nice), Tokina (very nice), Cosina Voigtlander (all metal/very nice), Leica (all metal/very nice), tonnes of old Russian lenses and such, etc., and the Tamron lenses always felt the cheapest.

[marknagel]

Pictures worth a thousand words.

 

http://www.nagelhome.com/Test%20Final.jpg

 

Note the huge variation in 4 different Tamron 28-75f/2.8 lenses.

 

Mark

[bw]

Perhaps the "tester" should have used 4 Sigmas and 4 Canons aswell, then a comparison of sample variation could be made.

[marknagel]

Brett,

The "test" was for image quality, not sample variation. I went through 4 Tamron's before giving up on them. I decided to fork out the cash for the Canon and was satisfied. But 4 bad copies...variation in softness or not, is not what I would call sharp. My point was huge variation, 4 lenses, none acceptable. If I bought 3 more Canon's, at least one is know to be sharp, most likely all, but you are right, I can't prove that without buying 3 more.

 

M

Mark

[alan_myers]

You might be interesed to know that Tamron has extensive experience building professional lenses for the movie industry, and IMHO some of their SLR lenses are designed and built to a very high level.

 

However, like most manufacturers (Canon included), Tamron makes entry level, mid-level as well as pro-quality optics. So, it's entirely too generalized to say, "Tamron lenses are as good as L-series Canon lenses", or not.

 

In the past, Tamron's designation for its top of the line lenses was "SP", but I don't know if this is still the case. Over the years I've used a number of older Tamson SP lenses and found some to be quite capable. I still have a couple manual focus Tamron SP 90/2.5 Macro lenses that see occasional use.

 

All lenses come down to some sort of compromise. These are made in terms of design, construction, materials, size & weight, etc... and price. There is no such thing as a "perfect" lens. Certain lenses come closer to someone's idea of perfection or are less compromising than others, and carry price tags or other costs (i.e. size, weight) that reflect the difference.

 

Canon's L-series lenses tend to be innovative, more highly developed, and finely made from top quality materials. So their prices reflect that.

 

Are they worth the extra cost? Only you can answer that. If a less expensive lens from Tamron or Canon meets your needs, then no, the extra cost of an L-series lens isn't worth it *for you*. But, for someone else the exact opposite might be true.

[neil_v.]

My Tamron 17-50/2.8 occasionally has shockingly bad CA at 2.8. (This isn't a cameraphone!) If I didn't often need 2.8, I'd get a Canon 17-40/4L.

 

Subjectively, from practical shooting, my Canon 70-200/4L regularly blows me away with contrast and color, and I haven't yet had that reaction to my Tamron 17-50.

 

The Canon lenses are also superior in build quality and cosmetics.

[david_lau3]

I own the Tamron 28-75 which many people said is as sharp as L. I later bought the Canon 24-105L and sold the Tamron afterwards.

 

The L blows the Tamron away with excellent contrast and color. Nothing more to say.

[raymond_black]

It actually depends on what you want. Tamron is not L. There are a no. of differences

even not considering image quality :

 

- L support full time manual focus but Tamron not

 

- 17-40L is weather seal but Tamron not

 

- L can be used on full frame body. This is important because you can still use it when

you upgrade the camera.

 

I haven't used this Tamron lens and i can't comment much on imagine quality. However, I

have used several third party lens and found most are soft wide open and soft at corner.

Overall, most of those thrid party lens are not L but it really depends whether you want to

pay for L.

[yanglee]

why not just borrow or rent a few lenses (if you can), test them yourself, and buy what you think is best for you, photography-wise and finantially.

[yakim_peled1]

Digital lens = The lens has small circle of light. Enough to fully cover APS-C sensor but not film or FF sensor. If mounted on film or FF camera you will see horrible darkening in the edges (vignetting). The Canon sub-species is called EF-S and will physically not even mount on non-EF-S cameras.

 

Digital lens = The lens has special coatings and gives better results than previous models.

 

Digital lens = Marketing BS.

 

Unfortunately, the three brands tent to mix at times. This may be quite confusing.

 

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[robert_reiss]

I think the potential viewers of your photos might also be a consideration. I am an amateur but have taken people photos with my Tamron 28-75 sp xr di lens with a backdrop and studio type lighting (speedotron brownline)or outdoors. People say the photos look professional and wonder when I am going to start my own business.

 

OTOH, if I was taking photos for a discriminating photo editor for publication, I might select L lenses. I have two L lenses (16-35mm and 200mm prime) but I'm not sure the image quality at my enlargment size or computer monitoring can be distinguished from the Tamron.

 

See my photo sharing site:

<a href="http://rrphoto.smugmug.com">http://rrphoto.smugmug.com</a>

[jim_larson1]

Wow. I fair amount of wierd information in this thread.

 

My view: "L" lenses are somewhat overpriced for what they are. They definately exhibit a non-linear price/performance relationship relative to non-L lenses.

 

"L" lenses are definately pro grade. And are pro priced. They really are built differently, and built better.

 

In terms of "image quality", that is a seperate issue. Most "L" lenses are excellent. Can a non "L" compete? Well. . .the $70 50/1.8 (complete with plastic lens mount) takes excellent images compared to "L" zooms. But make no mistake. . .the $70 50/1.8 is built like junk. The image quality of the $250 50/1.4 is being compared by a number of people to the $1600 50/1.2L. . . and the 50/1.2L is not looking so good.

 

In my experience. . . .the red ring of the "L" lenses are just a snob factor issue. I shoot non-paid, and non-pro. Only one person has every noted the fact I was using high end gear.

 

BUT. . .I don't think there is any question that the "L" zooms are better both build-wise and image-wise to the Canon "prosumer" zooms. Just like stereo equipment. . you pay a premium for top end quality. The question of "is it worth it" is a personal matter.

 

What do I shoot? I shoot "L" zooms and cheap primes.

[anson_ko]

If photography is your hobby, don't get L series if you dont' have a deep pocket. No one can justify the cost of L series. For Pros, you don't want your customers to be unhappy because your lens/camera fails at extreme conditions. That's my reason why I invest heavily on L and have 2 copies of my pictures backed up onsite. Only you can tell if L series is "worth" it or not. There is never a linear ratio. like the 50mm 1.4 vs 1.2L, cost 5x times but you never get 5x better image.

[cordek]

I'm always cautious when reading magazine reviews as they tend to be "fluffy" so they don;t offend the various mfg's. This is the case and reason for my note. I've been reading everything here as well as research, so I really got a clear vision now. I've been using the Tamron 28-75 dig for sometime but now I am moving to upgrade. So, thanks to all who responded. I really appreiate your thoughts and opinions. -Ron