Canon 17-55 f2.8L vs Tamron 17-50 f2.8 vc

atcNick · Nov 17, 2011

I just bought my wife a canon 7d, an upgrade from an XS. I want to buy her a nice lens for it, looking at these two lenses. They seem similar as far as specs go, but a huge price difference. Can you guys offer some advice please.

Much appreciated.

-Nick

MLeeK · Nov 17, 2011

The canon is a heavier, sturdier build and a sharper lens. I have the Tamron... I am happy enough with it, but I wouldn't purchase again. I'd purchase the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 all day long.
Is there a reason you are looking at a lens that is so wide? At the wide end of that lens there is a lot of lens distortion to deal with on a crop sensor as 17mm is into fisheye. Think about the dog photos with the big nose. Not quite THAT much into fisheye. Just a slight bit, but it can be very noticeable in close up portraits.
However if she is using it for landscape? it's an awesome range.

atcNick · Nov 17, 2011

Well, it may be the wrong lens. Im very much a newbie so I guess I need help choosing the right lens. This lens will be mainly for portraits and photos of the kids.

-Nick

Derrel · Nov 17, 2011

17mm is not "fisheye" in any sense of the word! This is 2011---a 17mm focal length is not very wide at all on APS-C and 28-70 or 28-75 are FILM-era lens lengths.Buy the lower cost Tamron 17-50/2.8 and save some money.

MLeeK · Nov 17, 2011

Oh for Pete's sake.
Look here for what I am talking about: Untitled Document

Big Mike · Nov 18, 2011

MLeeK said:
Oh for Pete's sake.
Look here for what I am talking about: Untitled Document

Those are examples from a full frame camera, not an APS-C 'crop' sensor camera.

Below is a long version of what the face looks like with lenses from a 35MM full frame DSLR, 24x36mm chip

I'm with Derrel, 24(28)-75mm isn't a comfortable focal range on a camera like the 7D.

I also have the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8. I wanted the Canon 17-55mm but it was just too expensive.
I've talked to many photographers who own the Canon 17-55mm, they all agree that the image quality it top notch. And because it's a great lens with a Canon name, it's going to be expensive. The Tamron isn't quite as good in terms of image quality, although it's pretty good darn good.
The focus is different. The Canon has a 'ring USM' focus motor, so it's fast and almost silent. The Tamron is slower and noisier. The noise has never bothered me though.

Overread · Nov 18, 2011

MLeeK said:
Oh for Pete's sake.
Look here for what I am talking about: Untitled Document

Just to add to Big Mike's point don't mix up the perspective distortion of wide angle lenses with the fisheye effect. You can go as wide as 8mm on crop sensor without the lens being fish-eye (sigma 8-16mm) and the results are very different to those from a proper fish-eye lens.

memento · Nov 18, 2011

I have the 17-55 and LOVE it. It stays on my camera 80% of the time.

I shoot a lot of indoor family stuff.. bday's, holidays... 28mm on a crop sensor is way too long for that.
I had a 28-135 and was always backing up into walls and still not getting everyone in the frame.

I think if i could do it all over again I would get the 15-85 though. It wasn't out at the time when I was looking. My dad has this lens and it's really nice. I don't use the 2.8 as much as I thought I would... I use my 430EX instead.

Big Mike · Nov 18, 2011

I just noticed that the OP was asking about the Tamron 17-50mm VC. I don't have the VC version, I've got the older version without VC. It's still available in stores and it's much cheaper than the VC version. So if price is a factor, the Tamron 17-50mm (non VC) is less than half the price of the Canon 17-55mm.

Big Mike · Nov 18, 2011

I think if i could do it all over again I would get the 15-85 though. It wasn't out at the time when I was looking. My dad has this lens and it's really nice. I don't use the 2.8 as much as I thought I would... I use my 430EX instead.

Yes, if you are going to use flash, a large aperture isn't as important.
But, from what I've heard, the 15-85mm lens is little better than a consumer grade lens, in terms of image quality. The 17-55mm is on par with most 'L' zoom lenses.

memento · Nov 18, 2011

Big Mike said:
The 17-55mm is on par with most 'L' zoom lenses.

I can vouch for that!
FTR - I have not done any IQ comparison research between the two.

My comment was only thinking about the 2.8
I feel I'm taking the IQ for granted...

shootermcgavin · Nov 18, 2011

I would put Sigma in the mix, I liked that lens better than the Tamron. Canon is just too much moola not enough difference.

Big Mike · Nov 18, 2011

Another factor is that while the Canon lens is clearly the 'best' one, it isn't perfect. I know several wedding photographers who use that lens, and many of them have had the IS system stop working. This may not be an issue for light usage, but for a professional, who is using this lens a lot, the IS system is prone to failure. It is repairable, but it's not exactly cheap and the warranted is only one year.
Also, it's not sealed up all that well so it tends to get dust inside of it. 99% of the time, dust inside a lens won't affect your images...but when you pay $1000+, it sucks to see that dust in there.

gsgary · Nov 18, 2011

How long has the 17-55 been an L lens ?

Big Mike · Nov 18, 2011

It's not. Canon doesn't give the L designation to EF-S lenses. But I think that many will agree that if they did, the 17-55mm and the 10-20mm might get that designation.