Should I upgrade from canon 18-55 iii kit to Tamron 17-50 (non VC)

frankhoekzema · May 17, 2012

I have been shooting with a Canon DSLR 1100D for a couple of months now and I have been getting great reactions. I recently added the 55-250 is lens to the 18-55 iii kit lens and that's been a lot of fun. What I have noticed is that I am not liking the kit lens. I have had the chance to shoot with a 15-85 and that was a LOT sharper on all shots. Now I can't spend that kind of money on another lens but I have a chance to pick up the non VC Tamron 17-50 lens for 200 euros. I am wondering if I should go ahead and do this or if I should save up big bucks for a Canon 17-55? The 200 euros includes a b&w uv filter so I thought it was a pretty good deal...Any opinions?

belial · May 17, 2012

I think the tamron will be good for you. The 18-55 3 wasn't a very good lens. The tamron is a huge step up and rated almost as good as the canon 17-55 for resolution.

maaatter · May 17, 2012

The Tamron is a good substitute for the Canon 17-55 with a lot smaller price tag. The only you would want to look at is the sharpness. With any lens some are bad copies and some are good. If you can shoot some pictures with it before purchasing, do a few shots from f2.8 and then go from there.

frankhoekzema · May 17, 2012

The only doubt I have is that I really only use the 17-24 end at the moment. I have the 50mm 1.8 which is great for most stuff and I really want another lens for the wide end. Problem is that seems to be the poor end on the Tamron?

Buckster · May 17, 2012

frankhoekzema said:
I have been shooting with a Canon DSLR 1100D for a couple of months now and I have been getting great reactions. I recently added the 55-250 is lens to the 18-55 iii kit lens and that's been a lot of fun. What I have noticed is that I am not liking the kit lens. I have had the chance to shoot with a 15-85 and that was a LOT sharper on all shots. Now I can't spend that kind of money on another lens but I have a chance to pick up the non VC Tamron 17-50 lens for 200 euros. I am wondering if I should go ahead and do this or if I should save up big bucks for a Canon 17-55? The 200 euros includes a b&w uv filter so I thought it was a pretty good deal...Any opinions?

What is it you're shooting with the 18-55 that's not yielding sharp images? A posted example with the EXIF still attached would be a good start.

UV filters are useless on digital cameras, other than to get between your expensive lens and whatever it is you're trying to photograph.

frankhoekzema · May 17, 2012

Unfortunately I have no idea how to upload a photo to here via my iPad which I am restricted to using today. Photos I am referring to are forest, landscape and playground photos. Funny thing is going through all my photos from the past 2 months I only found a handful that were at less than 50mm. (apart from a whole bunch of sunsets at 18-20) Maybe the smart choice would be to play around more with the kit lens and possibly save for a good wide angle lens no?

Buckster · May 17, 2012

frankhoekzema said:
Unfortunately I have no idea how to upload a photo to here via my iPad which I am restricted to using today. Photos I am referring to are forest, landscape and playground photos. Funny thing is going through all my photos from the past 2 months I only found a handful that were at less than 50mm. (apart from a whole bunch of sunsets at 18-20) Maybe the smart choice would be to play around more with the kit lens and possibly save for a good wide angle lens no?

Are you using a tripod?

frankhoekzema · May 17, 2012

Thats 50/50. When I can I use a tripod. But often when I am out with the kids I just can't carry it around with me.

Buckster · May 17, 2012

frankhoekzema said:
Thats 50/50. When I can I use a tripod. But often when I am out with the kids I just can't carry it around with me.

Here's the thing: The 18-55mm lenses are capable of very sharp photos. Usually, a bit of investigation into the techniques of someone who's not happy with them reveal problems with their techniques, moreso than problems with the lens. If the user doesn't correct those techniques, other lenses will often have the same "problems": User Error.

For sharp photos, use a tripod when you can. Otherwise, crank up the shutter speed. That usually means cranking up the ISO and maybe also opening up the aperture, though for sharpest photos from most lenses, stop them down about two stops from wide open to get to their "sweet spot" (I recommend testing your individual lenses to find the sweet spot, then you'll know for each one where "best" is).

belial · May 17, 2012

Buckster said:
Here's the thing: The 18-55mm lenses are capable of very sharp photos. Usually, a bit of investigation into the techniques of someone who's not happy with them reveal problems with their techniques, moreso than problems with the lens. If the user doesn't correct those techniques, other lenses will often have the same "problems": User Error.

For sharp photos, use a tripod when you can. Otherwise, crank up the shutter speed. That usually means cranking up the ISO and maybe also opening up the aperture, though for sharpest photos from most lenses, stop them down about two stops from wide open to get to their "sweet spot" (I recommend testing your individual lenses to find the sweet spot, then you'll know for each one where "best" is).

Although I agree the 18-55 is is a very good bargain lens the original 18-55s were never known as such.

Buckster · May 17, 2012

belial said:
Buckster said:

Here's the thing: The 18-55mm lenses are capable of very sharp photos. Usually, a bit of investigation into the techniques of someone who's not happy with them reveal problems with their techniques, moreso than problems with the lens. If the user doesn't correct those techniques, other lenses will often have the same "problems": User Error.

For sharp photos, use a tripod when you can. Otherwise, crank up the shutter speed. That usually means cranking up the ISO and maybe also opening up the aperture, though for sharpest photos from most lenses, stop them down about two stops from wide open to get to their "sweet spot" (I recommend testing your individual lenses to find the sweet spot, then you'll know for each one where "best" is).

Click to expand...

Although I agree the 18-55 is is a very good bargain lens the original 18-55s were never known as such.

These were all shot with the original 18-55-s on an (ancient by today's standards) Canon 20D:

Conclusion: The internet trash talk about this lens not being sharp enough and generally sucking and needing to be replaced with a better lens to get good photos is unfounded. The actual problem is that because it's often one of the first lenses a new shooter gets, it's usually in the hands of new shooters who haven't got a grasp of how to best use their gear yet.

With some basic education from more experienced users on how to better use their gear, those problems can often be corrected so that the newer shooters can get a lot better quality from the gear they already have.

belial · May 17, 2012

Very nice shots as always buck. Should've known you had some examples. I was actually going by my pro friend who had a xti with one of the old 18-55 lenses and much preferred the new 18-55 when she had a chance to use it. Plus the photozone reviews were less than stellar on this lens

frankhoekzema · May 18, 2012

Thanks for taking the time to explain. I have decided not to go for the lens. I have the 3rd generation non is kit lens and from what I understand on other forums it is optically pretty much identical to the is 2. I am also looking to get a wide lens and a macro so I will save up for them first. I may even get a set of Kenko extension tubes first to use with the 50mm 1.8. That should keep me busy for a while.