Tamron lenses - are they worth it?

MarcusM · Sep 19, 2007

I think in the future I will buy a Canon 40D or 5D. I'm not sure yet, it depends on if I want to fork over the extra $$$ for the 5D.

It will be awhile yet, and right now I have a EOS Digi Rebel, and in the meantime, I want to get a different lens than the 18-55 mm kit lens.

I saw that Tamron lenses are a fraction of the price of Canon lenses. Are they worth it or will I just be disappointed that I got a big fancy looking lens but only average image quality?

Don Simon · Sep 19, 2007

It depends. Really, it depends on the individual lenses being compared, it depends on your budget and it depends on your priorities. The same is true with the other third-parties (Tokina and Sigma).

If for example you could afford Tamron's 17-50mm f/2.8, there could be little doubt that it is an excellent lens for the price... something similar from Canon would cost a lot more. On the other hand there will be Tamron lenses which are only average or below-average. The same with true with Canon; neither company produces only the finest products (as you know from looking at the kit lens).

So IMO, look at the specific lenses you are comparing, consider the price difference, the difference in optical and build quality, technology etc... and decide if it's worth it.

Of course there are people who will only buy Canon lenses for Canon dSLRs, Nikon for Nikon etc... but then there are people who will only drink one brand of bottled water; it doesn't make everyone else wrong

sabbath999 · Sep 19, 2007

Well, from personal experience I can tell you that the picture quality of the best Tamrons (the DI II LD series) are optically nearly as good as the standard Canon lenses, with build quality that is not quite up to Canon's standard.

Obviously, Canon L glass is entirely superior in every way.

Deadeye008 · Sep 19, 2007

I have the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and it is a great lense. Very good image quality, very good build quality. Is it as good as the Canon L lenses...Maybe not, but it costs about a third of the Canon. If I was a professional photographer I would most certainly get the L glass. But, being on a budget and only an amatuer I went with the Tamron. Bottom line, Canon L glass is better if you can afford it but Tamrons top lenses are great lenses and carry a great price tag.

sabbath999 · Sep 19, 2007

I should have mentioned that I personally shoot the Tamron AF70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 Lens, and love it. I find it to have as good if not better quality than the Nikon 70-300G. True, it is not a pro lens, and is quite plastic in the barrel. Still, it makes good pictures.

Many of the shots on My Website were made with it.

Is it better than a Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR? No. Not even ballpark. But one costs $2000, and the other $100, so there ya have it.

shachr6 · Sep 19, 2007

I have the Tamron lens myself and love it. Its a fraction of the price, and I didnt want to spend that much money on the Canon lens when I read about the dust problems and all of that stuff when I could have a lens that works great for half of the price. If Canon ever fixes there lens I will probably buy one, but until then I dont think its worth the money!

Digital Matt · Sep 19, 2007

Every company makes good lenses and bad lenses. You can't judge a whole company, rather each individual item. Check reviews on the lenses you are interested. Here is a good site. http://www.fredmiranda.com/

One thing to keep in mind is that dslrs with smaller sensors only show a portion of the lens circle, ie the BEST portion of it. If you get a full frame dslr like the 5D, it's going to take full advantage of a great lens, but also take all of the negative aspects of an average or bad lens, like edge softness, light falloff, and chromatic abberation. If I were investing in a camera like a 5D, I'd make sure I had the dough to match a great lens to it.

usayit · Sep 19, 2007

I have a 35-105 f2.8 aspherical Tamron lens that I purchased a few years ago. Wonderful quality lens and greatly under appreciated even though the reviews were favorable. I've kept it just incase I do need a fast medium zoom. Noise and slower AF motor compared to the Canon USM but it has good glass.

The thing is.... every manufacturer has their hits and misses . This includes Canon and Nikon. Saying that some brand is bad is a gross generalization.

One example is the 28-105 f2.8 which was suppose to replace the Tamron I have. It wasn't well received although I personally don't know why.