Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 vs Canon primes (24,35,50)

'lo,

The canon 17-55 EFS being much too expensive, I hesitate between the new tamron 17-50 f2.8 and a tryptic of canon primes such as 24 f2.8, 35 f2 and 50 f1.4.

Could I have your advise on this regarding overall sharpness, center & corner, as well as colour contrast.

Going below 2.8 is actually not a priority for me, so I'd base my choice comparing the zoom against the roimes at f2.8.

Thanks for your advise.

Curious to see what others think. I currently own the 24 f/2.8, 35 f/2 and 50 f/1.8. I have more or less decided to sell the 24 and the 35 and buy a Tamron 17-50. I really like primes, but feel that at f/2.8 the 24mm isn't giving me anything that the Tamron wouldn't. The 35 is a nice lens and a stop faster, but a touch soft at f/2.0. With the Tamron I'd have a wider range (17mm vs 24), avoid the need to swap lenses and still have the nifty fifty for low light work. From online tests it appears that the Tamron is as sharp as my primes. I think the fact that it's a crop-camera lens is what makes the Tamron so appealing - it really is small and light for its speed. That's not the case for my longer lenses which are all primes (85mm f/1.8, 100mm macro, 200mm f/2.8), where I have no interest in the monstruous white alternatives that would be needed.

If I do this, I would also start saving for an eventual purchase of a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 which is supposed to be a smoking lens.

I had that lens before... don't expect anything amazing, especially not sharpness, mine couldn't focus worth a sh~t either... that set a new record for me, I returned that lens about an hour after I got it, that's how retardedly bad it was.

--
Once a Marine, always a Marine.

I have the 24/2.8 and it's fine - reasonable sharp wide open and great from f4 down. Having said that, for a 1.6 crop sensor, I would still go for the 17-50 zoom or similar, as a versatile walkaround.

galeota said:

'lo,

The canon 17-55 EFS being much too expensive, I hesitate between
the new tamron 17-50 f2.8 and a tryptic of canon primes such as 24
f2.8, 35 f2 and 50 f1.4.

Click to expand...

Well, none of the primes are going to help if you need to use 17mm. Do you?

Ryan

--
One night in Sofia
http://ryan.li/

The primes are generally a tad sharper than a good zoom. However I think that only shows up on large posters. I went thru the same decisions a while back. I ended up with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 because I needed more than one length, and given I already have the wonderful canon 24-105IS I was thinking just a low light 20mm prime would suffice.

But then I also needed a low light indoor portrait, and I was pretty sure a 20mm or less prime would not be useful for that. So again, yet another decent lens that'd be in the bag most the time, except for landscapes.

So I finally made the decision to scrap the prime idea and get the Tamron, as it also is a great little walkaround, clarity excellent, and can be used for all my needs, the low light, the portrait, and the wide.[and now even great at macro] I can throw it in my purse as an extra to compliment the 24-105.

The prime idea probably would have been good for me, having problems carrying heavy zooms [which I have]. But I like to shoot birds, etc. so I wanted good glass at that length too. I think, unless you are willing to carry a bunch of lenses around, one must decide which end of the spectrum you want to maximize the quality, depending on what you shoot most that day. Primes may be the best for that. Zooms for walkarounds.

I don't know if zooms solve the problem. But it did for me. And the Tamron was a perfect answer for my shooting style. BTW I have not seen any real issues, pleasantly surprised with the clarity across the photos including corners. I have some tests in my photo album, click on the Tamron tests album. [For full shots, click on O, they have not been processed] 7 pages. Only two so far that showed any barrel/pincussion distortion of a lightpost, and I know based on my 17-85IS, that is normal shooting at 2.8 @17mm.

--



http://netgarden.smugmug.com/
DSC V1 Sony for Infrared, Canon 20D,
a few too many lenses...

of course its f10, and breezy out. But the Tamron does a nice job with clarity across the board. I took a few in portrait mode too, and they were just as good. [original, but resized to half size, reduced bytes for album]



--



http://netgarden.smugmug.com/
DSC V1 Sony for Infrared, Canon 20D,
a few too many lenses...

Hmm - don't know why our experience differs. My 24mm is a fine lens, I just don't think it's special the way my other primes are. I hope the 17-50 lives up to the hype.

D

And the Tamron excells all in terms of resolution IN THE CENTRE of the image at 2.8. It is sharper than my 35 f2 and 24 2.8 , about the same as the 50 1.8

The focus is the same story ; very bad and slow on the primes , quick and precise on the tamron .

Really not worth comparing , this is a new technology lens just released ; and those primes are very old...

--
http://www.pbase.com/mariush

with the exception of 35 f/1.4L, they are not better than new zooms. If you do not want 17-55 f/2.8 IS, get Tamron or Canon 17-40 f/4.0 L
--
Michael

'People are crazy and times are strange, I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range, I used to care, but things have changed' - Bob Dylan