EF 35mm f/2.0 vs Tamron SP AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di LD ASL IF + Adapter question

[eugene_ho1]

<p>I am using a 450d with the 18-55 kit lens.<br>

In my country the price for he two lens are about the same.</p>

<p>1. How does the Tamron zoom lens perform against a Canon prime? Is the zoom range worth it?<br /> <br /> 2. Another question is, I have been searching for wide angle primes, and the cheap ones from Nikon and Olympus doesn't have Canon mount. Does a adapter affects anything? Can I use the focusing motor on them? how much do they usually cost?<br /> <br /> Thanks</p>

[rainer_t]

<p>I had both lenses, but I find it hard to compare them ... at 35mm the Tamron is only f/4 whereas the prime is f/2. Regarding the range ... I found the 17-35 a bit limiting as a normal zoom on a crop 1.6 body. I would prefer the Tarmon 17.50/2.8 DiII here. (Now that I upgraded to a fullframe body, I use the 17-35 as a superwide).</p>

<p>If you adapt anything to your Canon, you can only use the lens in manual mode ... manual focus, manual aperture, stop down metering. AF will not work.</p>

[bob_osullivan]

<p>I currently own both of these lenses. But they are really not in the same league for comparison. I use them for completely different purposes.</p>

<p>Both are very sharp. Of course there will be the difference in bokeh due to the aperture. The zoom is a great super wide on FF. And it's an ok wide to normal on crop.</p>

<p>I agree that if you are replacing the 18-55 neither of these are probably the best fit. Consider 17-70 from Sigma, or 17-50 from Sigma or Tamron. All are fine lenses. Also, the new Canon 18-55 IS is suipposed to be much bettter. You might consider that.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I only have the 35mm f/2, and it is a fine "normal" and fast lens for an APS-C sensor camera. The fact that the Tamron ends up at the same focal length doesn't seem relevant to me since it is overall a medium wide to normal zoom, and I wouldn't think <em>I</em> would use it in the same way as the prime. If it's not apples and oranges, it's clearly Cameo apples versus Greenups Pippins.</p>

[eugene_ho1]

<p>Bob O'Sullvan, what kind of use have you put into these two lenses?<br>

Would the 17-60mm and 17-50mm be similar to the quality of the two lenses?Worth it or not? I would like to try the quality of a prime, but the 50mm 1.8 from Canon seems a bit long in focal length. So are these lenses worthy to use in terms of money quality ratio?</p>

 

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I like my EF 35 2.0. Have used it since 1995 and it's friggen kickass: petite, sharp wide open, simple to use and easy on the wallet. It lives on my XTi as a lay-around the house grabshot lens. I've only played with the Tammy but the spinning MF ring kept snagging on my fingertips. Odd there is no MF clutch in a $500 optic.</p>

[chris.sager]

<p>I would seriously consider the Tamron 17-50 F2.8. It's more expensive, but offers a very usefull range on a crop camera. </p>