60D - Canon 17-85mm vs. Tamron 17-50mm VC ?

Started Jul 13, 2012 | Discussions
Cyanide13
New MemberPosts: 1
Like?
60D - Canon 17-85mm vs. Tamron 17-50mm VC ?
Jul 13, 2012

Hi!

I'm a student in photography and I just bought a Canon 60D kit that came with a 17-85mm and a 55-250mm lens. I like the latter but I've read quite bad reviews about the 17-85mm... I've done a lot of research online and found the Tamron 17-50mm VC. I'd really like to start using my 60D but can't touch the 17-85mm if I want to resell it... Would it be worth it if I wait and try to sell it new to buy the Tamron lens? I mean, as a semi-beginner in photography will I really notice the difference between the two lenses? I don't really have a lot of money left so I can't buy the 17-50mm and sell the 17-85mm later.

Thanks

Canon EOS 60D
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
victorian squid
Senior MemberPosts: 1,826Gear list
Like?
Re: 60D - Canon 17-85mm vs. Tamron 17-50mm VC ?
In reply to Cyanide13, Jul 13, 2012

I own the 17-85. It's passable, and I still actually like it for a knock around lens. Huge barrel distortion at 17, and loads of CA. Fairly sharp, but nothing to write home to Mom about.

If money is an issue (and when is it not for a student?) you should take a look at the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non VC lens. It's arguably sharper than the VC, and I've seen some here call it an L killer. Plus, the price is tough to beat.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/289-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-canon-test-report--review
http://www.lenstip.com/index.html?test=obiektywu&test_ob=18

If you are considering that price range, then you should also look at the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS. I've got that lens, and it's fantastic. Sharp beyond all reason - and I think even better than the 17-55 which I've gotten to play with quite a bit. Golden copy? Maybe, but some reviews agree.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/531-sigma1750f28os
http://www.lenstip.com/index.html?test=obiektywu&test_ob=256

My copy is sharp from edge to edge wide open at any length. When I first got it I thought I might have a decentering issue (I didn't) but after a bunch of tests I was very impressed.

Here's a couple with the 17-85 on my XTi

And one with the Sigma (I have loads) This shot taken with Live View which I normally don't use (focus point a bit off) - but if I get down on my knees the dogs come over to me!

100% crop, 1:1 uncorrected JPEG

I'm sure lots of folks here can tell you about their Tamron/Sigma lenses. One reason I might edge you towards the non-VC Tamron is that extra $150 or so saved would go a long ways towards a nice flash, filters, kit bag...

 victorian squid's gear list:victorian squid's gear list
Canon EOS 60D Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM +27 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
HaroldT6
Regular MemberPosts: 126
Like?
The Tamron 17-50 VC version is really a great lens
In reply to Cyanide13, Jul 14, 2012

Cyanide13,

The Tamron 17-50 VC is always rated "not as sharp" as the non VC version. Well, I can't say because I've never compared real life photographs between the two. And I would suspect that much of the belief in that comparison simply rests on what other people have heard or what they've read, etc., etc. All I can suggest to you is try to look at some real life photographs - not the charts and graphs that half of us don't understand anyway, and form your own opinion based on those same real life photographs.

Since I'm a firm believer in the fact everyone is entitled to their opinion, that means I get one, too. I happen to find the Tamron 17-50 VC version sharp and the VC very effective. I'm attaching 4 pictures from a recent trip to Chicago using this lens. I would be very interested and open minded if someone could post some real life photos using the non-vc version so I could compare...if I could see a noticeable difference in sharpness between the two versions, I would certainly be convinced.

Have a great day and good luck with your photography in the future.
--
HaroldT6

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Cclr
Regular MemberPosts: 148
Like?
Completely Agree Re: The Tamron 17-50 VC version is really a great lens
In reply to HaroldT6, Aug 4, 2012

I recently went with Tamron's 17-50 VC version and am highly impressed. Low light performance, wide open at 1/25 sec:

T4i/650D 1/25 sec., f/2.8, 46mm ISO 400

"Auto" Picture Style setting, converted from Raw, without pp

100% crop from shot above -- @ 1/25 sec:

T4i/650D 1/25 sec., f/2.8, 46mm ISO 400

Low light snap, full Auto - JPG straight from camera T4i/650D, 1/60 f/2.8, 50mm ISO 1600, w/Flash:

"Scene Intelligent Auto"

As HaroldT6 suggests, those interested may further browse 17-50 Tamron VC & Sigma OS photos, view their respective Flickr Groups linked below:

Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II VC LD Aspherical (IF)
1,534 members | 17,823 photos
@ http://www.flickr.com/groups/tamron_17-50mm_vc/

Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM
771 members | 7,812 photos
@ http://www.flickr.com/groups/1449225@N25/
--
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/sbmgar/popular-interesting

HaroldT6 wrote:

Cyanide13,

The Tamron 17-50 VC is always rated "not as sharp" as the non VC version. Well, I can't say because I've never compared real life photographs between the two. And I would suspect that much of the belief in that comparison simply rests on what other people have heard or what they've read, etc., etc. All I can suggest to you is try to look at some real life photographs - not the charts and graphs that half of us don't understand anyway, and form your own opinion based on those same real life photographs.

Since I'm a firm believer in the fact everyone is entitled to their opinion, that means I get one, too. I happen to find the Tamron 17-50 VC version sharp and the VC very effective. I'm attaching 4 pictures from a recent trip to Chicago using this lens. I would be very interested and open minded if someone could post some real life photos using the non-vc version so I could compare...if I could see a noticeable difference in sharpness between the two versions, I would certainly be convinced.

Have a great day and good luck with your photography in the future.
--
HaroldT6

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Senior MemberPosts: 5,244
Like?
Re: The Tamron 17-50 VC version is really a great lens
In reply to HaroldT6, Aug 5, 2012

HaroldT6 wrote:

Cyanide13,

All I can suggest to you is try to look at some real life photographs - not the charts and graphs that half of us don't understand anyway, and form your own opinion based on those same real life photographs.

That sounds good in theory, but in reality, it is very difficult to find good full res image to do careful comparison. the only places that have tons of full res images for you to see, happens to be the review sites that you suggest to avoid.

Since I'm a firm believer in the fact everyone is entitled to their opinion, that means I get one, too. I happen to find the Tamron 17-50 VC version sharp and the VC very effective. I'm attaching 4 pictures from a recent trip to Chicago using this lens.

These images look nice, however they do not assist your point -

1, they are taken at F5.6 to F8, this is a F2.8 lens, and it is the F2.8 sharpness that is the center of the issue. if F5.6 to F8 sharpnes is all that matters then canon 18-55 IS would suffice.

2, they are taken in 1/400 to 1/1000 SS, that does not indicate how good IS is.

3, they are all 1800x1200, that is 1/8 the full resolution. with a bit of post-processing, even a mediocre lens would look quite sharp when downsized this much.

Here is a 1/5s F2.8 image from 17-55 IS. it is not full res but at iso1600 you wouldnt want to see full res anyway.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Y0GI
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,208Gear list
Like?
Re: Completely Agree Re: The Tamron 17-50 VC version is really a great lens
In reply to Cclr, Aug 5, 2012

Cclr wrote:

I recently went with Tamron's 17-50 VC version and am highly impressed. Low light performance, wide open at 1/25 sec:

T4i/650D 1/25 sec., f/2.8, 46mm ISO 400

"Auto" Picture Style setting, converted from Raw, without pp

100% crop from shot above -- @ 1/25 sec:

T4i/650D 1/25 sec., f/2.8, 46mm ISO 400

I'm sorry, but the fur in your crop looks rather soft on my monitor.

-- hide signature --

Yogi

When you get down to the nuts and bolts of photography, the results depend on the 'nut' behind the camera!

See the 'Gear List' in my 'Profile' for my current equipment.

Check out WilbaW's beginner FAQs at - http://snipurl.com/RebelFAQ

 Y0GI's gear list:Y0GI's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Cclr
Regular MemberPosts: 148
Like?
Re: Completely Agree Re: The Tamron 17-50 VC version is really a great lens
In reply to Y0GI, Aug 5, 2012

Yes, Yogi, it does look rather soft on my monitor too, but my point in showing this 100% crop was to show low light capabilities with VC, hence slow shutter speed results; this was shot at 1/25 sec, and you may imagine how sharp the fur would appear had it been taken at 1/640 sec, the shutter speed for the dog's eye crop posted above by "victorian squid."

The shot above my crop is the straight raw conversion from which the 100% crop was taken. With my typical pp of raw shots, I would also re-size and apply sharpening as necessary. I believe this preliminary showing of the straight raw conversion demonstrates impressive results at 1/25 sec from the Tamron 17-50 VC.

Thank you for the feedback.

Y0GI wrote:

I'm sorry, but the fur in your crop looks rather soft on my monitor.

-- hide signature --

Yogi

When you get down to the nuts and bolts of photography, the results depend on the 'nut' behind the camera!

See the 'Gear List' in my 'Profile' for my current equipment.

Check out WilbaW's beginner FAQs at - http://snipurl.com/RebelFAQ

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Luís MCR
New MemberPosts: 9Gear list
Like?
Re: 60D - Canon 17-85mm vs. Tamron 17-50mm VC ?
In reply to Cyanide13, Aug 5, 2012

I bought the Tamron 17-50 VC to replace my Canon 17-85 and found it horrible. Soft at 2.8 and a serious problem of decentering. I returned it three days after i have received it.

It was a disappointment after buying the excellent Tamron 70-300 VC USD six months ago.

 Luís MCR's gear list:Luís MCR's gear list
Fujifilm X-A1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Cclr
Regular MemberPosts: 148
Like?
Re: The Tamron 17-50 VC version is really a great lens
In reply to ultimitsu, Aug 5, 2012

Fabulous resized results, ultimitsu, with the 17-55 IS in low light at 1/5 sec, 17mm, f/2.8 ISO 1600.

I've added a quick snap from yesterday at 1/25 sec, 17mm, f/2.8 ISO 400, with the Tamron 17-50 VC and T4i.

ultimitsu wrote:

These images look nice, however they do not assist your point -

1, they are taken at F5.6 to F8, this is a F2.8 lens, and it is the F2.8 sharpness that is the center of the issue. if F5.6 to F8 sharpnes is all that matters then canon 18-55 IS would suffice.

2, they are taken in 1/400 to 1/1000 SS, that does not indicate how good IS is.

3, they are all 1800x1200, that is 1/8 the full resolution. with a bit of post-processing, even a mediocre lens would look quite sharp when downsized this much.

Here is a 1/5s F2.8 image from 17-55 IS. it is not full res but at iso1600 you wouldnt want to see full res anyway.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads