Replacing my KitLens

[1000DUser]

I've decided to replace my kitlens, hoping for a sharper and better lens.
I have come down with this 3 conclusions :

17-50mm Tamron VC , 17-50mm Tamron non-VC , 15-85mm Canon 3.5-5.6 IS USM.

first i wanted to go with the tamron but hesitated cause i've read alot of complains about not sharp at f2.8 and users have dealt with loads of problems with the VC, on the other hand the non VC from reviews say its sharper and better but not rugged build. also the canon 15-85mm reviews say its sharp and has a longer focal length than the tamrons but without the constant aperture worth the money? ( i think the canon 15-85m is twice the price of the tamrons?)

 

[Big Mike]

Do you need/want a lens with a wide max aperture?

I have the Tamron 17-50 (non VC) as well as a kit 18-55mm and a 17-85mm IS. I have the Tamron because I need a wide aperture and because it offers great optical quality for the price. The build quality is fine...it's better than the 18-55mm, that's for sure.

I don't know much about the newer lenses, the VC Tamron and the 15-85mm. I'd assume that the Tamron is pretty good, as it's one of their higher level lenses, but who knows. The 15-85mm seems to be a consumer level lens....better than the cheap kit lenses but not as good as the top level ones. The range would be great to have for many situations, but the smaller max aperture could be limiting.

 

[1000DUser]

Yeah i think the 15-85mm is overprice ( IMO) so its either then tamron vc or non vc, but im confused with the sharpness of both, reviews online says VC aint sharp at all at 2.8 and then on vc is sharper but forumers say the VC is just as good

btw just out of curiousity, i could get a secondhand 17-85m the same price as the tamron? any good pics from the 17.-85?

also i have the canon 50mm 1.8 ( cheap prime ^^) should i let the 50mm 1.8 do the job in low lights and invest into the 17-85 or just go with the tamron?

btw thx for your help

 

[Big Mike]

The 17-85mm is a decent lens. Many people complain about it's barrell distortion but that's never really bothered me. I've heard that the new 15-85mm is supposed to be better though.

The 17-55mm F2.8 IS, is maybe the best lens in this class. Very very good...the only problem is that it's expensive....and that's my only problem with the Tamron VC...is that if you're going to spend $650 on a lens, why not just shell out a little more and get the really good 17-55?

I got my Tamron 17-50mm because it had pretty good quality but was only $500.

 

[Big Mike]

HERE is a thread with several shots I took with the 17-85mm. Some of my best work, IMO.

This was before I had the 70-200mm F2.8 L IS, which I would have used instead, now that I have it.

Like most lenses, it's at it's best when stopped down a little. I was probably shooting at F8 - F11.

 

[1000DUser]

i agree with you completely that the 17-55mm canon is btter but it cost a bomb for a non L lens. its twice the price of a tamron. btw in your opinion VC or non VC? the canon is so tempting if it just had f2.8

 

[Big Mike]

VC or no VC (or IS or VR etc) is a tough question. It's obviously a good tool to have, and if you don't have it, there will be times when you will wish that you did.

But we also need to consider that stabilization isn't as important on shorter lenses. For example, when shooting at 17mm, you could probably shoot at 1/20 or 1/30 without camera shake.

And obviously, the non-VR version is a good deal cheaper.

One philosophy, is that since you are not going to get the best option, either the 17-55mm or the 16-35mm F2.8 L, then you are making a compromise. And if that compromise is to save money, then you should look for a good bargain...the one that gives you the most for the least money....which might be the 17-50mm non VC.

 

[prodigy2k7]

I will be soon replacing my kit lens with this:

EF 17-40mm F/4L
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Lens 8806A002 - B&H Photo Video

And using this for longer zoom:
EF 70-200mm f/4L
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Lens 2578A002 - B&H Photo Video

I do 99% of my photography outdoors in lots of light so I dont really need the 2.8 lenses but they would be nice if you can afford it.
Also go to your local camera shop and hand-hold the lenses you want (especially if they are "L" and F/2.8 etc) to see if the weight is ok. On paper they dont sound heavy but when you hand-hold lenses, they start getting heavy!

 

[1000DUser]

Very much thanks to prodigy for you reply.

@BigMike : So i'll just go for the non-vc and invest into a tripod! Haha but the VC makes me loook proffesional with a bulky look teehee!

 

[Big Mike]

Haha but the VC makes me loook proffesional with a bulky look teehee!

Even the non-VC looks somewhat 'professional' when you have the 'petal' style lens hood on.

 

[orb9220]

Yep been using my Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non-VC for three years. And is best bang for the buck in it's range. Tho the new Sigma's are also contenders in that price range.
.

 

[KmH]

It's a rare f/2.8 or faster lens, of any brand, that is at it's sharpest when wide open. The vast majority need to be stopped down somewhat to find their sweetspot.

The reason is the shape of a lens. They are not the same thickness across their diameters.

 

[1000DUser]

It's a rare f/2.8 or faster lens, of any brand, that is at it's sharpest when wide open. The vast majority need to be stopped down somewhat to find their sweetspot.

The reason is the shape of a lens. They are not the same thickness across their diameters.

really? :O i didnt know that! even the canon?

 

[1000DUser]

Yep been using my Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non-VC for three years. And is best bang for the buck in it's range. Tho the new Sigma's are also contenders in that price range.
.

did your's have any back / front focusing issues? alot of peoplee say they had bad copies

 

[1000DUser]

Haha but the VC makes me loook proffesional with a bulky look teehee!

Even the non-VC looks somewhat 'professional' when you have the 'petal' style lens hood on.

will try it out in a shop