scottsmac
TPF Noob!
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2008
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 0
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
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
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