Comparing Cannon's 17-85mm to Tamron's 18-270mm

scottsmac · Oct 20, 2008

I am currently using a Cannon XSi body with the kit 18-55mm IS and a EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 II USM and I'm looking over lenses to replace and upgrade with. As well as getting a 50mm f/1.8 AF for portrait, I've been keeping my eye on the Tamron 18-270mm 3.5-6.3 VC DI-II or the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS. I havn't been able to find a solid evaluation of the Tamron 18-270mm so I've been comparing with the Tamron AF 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II LD Aspherical [IF] macro instead.

Tamron 18-250mm http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/2...-macro-canon-lens-test-report--review?start=1

Canon 17-85mm IS http://photozone.de/canon-eos/179-canon-ef-s-17-85mm-f4-56-usm-is-test-report--review?start=1

It looks like the Tamron has less distortion at 18mm then the Cannon does at 17mm, less vignetting, a little less center sharpness across the range and much better extreme boarder sharpness. The chromatic aberrations seem to be worse in the Cannon at 17mm, but worse in the Tamron everywhere else. The Tamron is cheaper but when IS (and the lack there of) is factored in, the Cannon seems to take the cake. The IS (aka Vibration Compensation) in the new Tamron 18-270 should even out that factor. Surely the new Tamron will have some minor improvements in image quality as well, right?

My tentative conclusion is to get the new Tamron 18-270 instead of the Cannon 17-85, replacing my current 18-55mm IS for most things, and also replacing my 75-300 as a walk around (without tri or mono pod stabilization) because of the VC.

What do you guys think? Am I not giving the cannon 17-85 enough credit or am I giving the new tamron 18-270 too much credit based on the old 18-250?

Thanks for any input,
Scottsmac

Sherlock112b · May 7, 2009

Hi,

I have been using the Tamron 18-250 on a Nikon D300 for nearly a year. I was thinking of changing to the 18-270 as the 18-250 is susceptible to some shake if used handheld, especially when on long focal length. Not saying I haven't had very good results, I have. But with the VR I think would make life easier.
I will say that with practise you can handhold a fast moving target and get good to very good results. You have to consider how far away from objects you are, as the lens does spoil you against other lenses with its very wide range of focal length.
I tend to use a monopod -if I remember it- and results are considerably better.
For the price I would recommend it, but it is hard to compare like for like as Nikon glass of similiar focal length is much more expensive.

blash · May 7, 2009

With rare exception don't buy Tamron, don't buy Sigma. Buy either Canon or Nikkor glass and that's it. If you can't afford the Canon/Nikkor variant, save up for it. Get anything less and you will be disappointed.

bdavis · May 7, 2009

I dont agree with the statement above, the manufacturers like Sigma and Tamron produce some great products. Take my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 vs the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8... I get the same range, same continuous aperture, and wonderful photos as I would get with the Nikon, but I paid about $400-$450 instead of $1,200.

These 3rd party manufacturers can give you 90% of the quality at about 1/3 of the price. You're paying much much more for that last 10% which you probably wouldn't even notice. All you're paying for is the name.

bigtwinky · May 7, 2009

I agree with bdavis. I own the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for my Canon XSI and I love the lens. It cost me $550 instead of $1500 for the Canon 24-70 f/2.8. Sure, the Canon is higher quality glass, better build and focuses faster, and anyone making a profession out of photography should aim to get the best glass out there, but for a hobbyest like myself, I'm extremely satisfied with my Tamron.

The whole 10% less quality for 1/3 the price is very true. I will never disagree that L series Canons are better IQ, better build and just better all around, and if you can afford one, go for it, you'll be very happy.

The Canon 17-85 is a very good lens. But it is not L series quality lens. I have taken shots with the 17-85 and been happy with them. I have not used the Tamron 18-270, but I have read a few favorable reviews. The Tamron at the long end will have a smaller max aperture than the Canon, which might hamper you if the lighting isn't ideal.