Reading mode: Light Dark

Lens reviews and/or how to decide....

Go to last post
G

Glenn W.

Veteran Member
Messages
6,428
Reaction score
7
Location
US
OK, here's the thing... largely based on a excelent review of the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 at photozone.de I got really interested in this lens as a replacement to my Kit lens on my 300D. I also read MANY excelent opinions and/or posts on this user forum that seem to fully concur that this lens is of top notch IQ, etc... As you may know if you read this forum much, I have owned two of these lenses, and can not get them to focus acceptably on my 300D... but that's kind of side issue for the purposes of this new thread...

Originaly I was pretty much set on getting a Canon 17-40mm f4 "L" lens, but when I started seeing reviews such as photozone.de has that shows the IQ of this lens to be lower then that of the Tamron mentioned above... I started having doubts about getting this which would be my first "L" lens... Now, the IQ specs in the review were only part of why I wound up buying the Tamron insted... the other reasons the L is more expensive, it has less zoom range, and it's not as 'fast'. (to be fair the L has it's own advantages, weather sealing, USM w/ftm, and that well respected reputation as "L").

Given my major focus problems with the Tamron on my 300D (that go away when it's mounted on a 30D)... I'm forced to re-consider many of my choices.... This morning I got thinking maybe I should go back to the idea of getting a Canon 17-40 f4 "L" lens... So I go back and look at the photozone.de reviews and start thinking that this "L" lens is not nearly as good at IQ in the MTF testing... and start having major doubts that I would be happy with the "L" lens... So I start reading reviews at FredMiranda.com... and well the "L" gets a 8.9 out of 10, rating, which is pretty darn good realy...

Next I go to photodo.com and look at their review... While they give the "L" good marks, they question if it's resolving power will be able to keep pace with the ever increasing pixel density of new DSLR cameras... Which scares me off a bit again.... But then I start looking at their MTF testing, comparing it to their MTF testing of the Tamron... Well to my surprize... it seems photodo.com actualy gives the "L" lens better MTF numbers then the Tamron... (the tests are done on two differnt cameras however, not sure how much of a issue that is).

All of this has me wondering... why should I trust ANY of the above sites? and/or what do others have any serious doubts about the value of the testing done at the two sites mentioned above that give MTF values? (I personaly really have some serious doubts about photozone.de for a few differnt reasons)...

And in the end... Anyone have any advice for me??? Should I try and get Tamron to 'calibrate' the 17-50mm so it will work on my 300D? or should I just buy the Canon 17-40mm L and give up on Tamron? I slightly lean toward giving up on Tamron, for a couple reasons... One is that apparently Tamron did a excelent job of making that lens work with a 30D and/or Canon's higher end focus system, but it would seem they overlooked or did not really make it work well with Canon's older focus system that was on the 300D... and IF Tamron would ever get me a lens that worked well on my 300D, would it then not work well on a newer Canon DSLR???

Sorry for the long post, but this whole experiance I'm having with trying to get a better lens for my 300D at a moderate price has me very frustrated...
 
And I have and like the Tamron, so I'm not really all that biased if I can give this recommendation.

The AF on the Tamron is okay, but on the Canon will be much better. The build on the Canon is better. The optical quality will probably be better if you get a good copy, although I think the Tamron is very nice at f/4 and above too. In addition it can be used on more cameras now and in the future.

The main advantages the Tamron has are 40-50mm, f/2.8, lighter weight, and a lower price. However, the Tamron gets a little softer at the 50mm end (as reported by photozone and borne out by my own use), and it is not the most stunning at f/2.8 (although it sharpens up nicely by f/3.5, and is noticeably sharper by f/3.2).

Here's a sample at 50mm, f/2.8:

 
You make an excellent point. For years, I've thought much the same thing: reviews of the same lens don't always agree. And, sometimes, it's as if they're talking about two entirely different lenses.

It all depends on a number of factors, including:
1. How the tests were done.
2. The sample quality of the lens.
3. The camera body used.
4. The ability of the reviewer.

5. Reader's perception of what "sharp" or "good" lens results actually are (it's all relative).

In the end, you'll just have to get the "general gist" from people who are actually using the lens, and from a bigger range of reviews. If most people are complimenting a lens, and giving it positive praise, there's usually a good reason for it.

If possible, always try to rent or borrow a lens before you buy it yourself (although, rental lenses can sometimes be pretty awful, consideirng they've been used and abused at times). Ideally, you'd always buy from a seller that has a no-questions-asked returns policy. It's also nice if you can try the lens first before you buy it, even if that means taking 20 shots in the shop and looking at them on a laptop.

Sadly, if you live in Australia, your options will be limited there. Hopefully you live in the US, where there seems to be an abundance of sellers who have more open return policies. They don't know how lucky they are.
;-)
 
Sorry, I somehow missed that you've already gotten two of that lens. I would go for the Canon unhesitatingly then, especially because it's not THAT much more money. If you really need the f/2.8, spring for the 17-55mm.

In answer to your question about how much I trust photozone and other sites, the answer is "a little". I give much more weight to how the pictures actually look. As Lee Jay has pointed out, there are some inconsisitencies even in the results from a single site. In addition they're just using one copy (usually) which is not exactly a statistically significant sample.

The thing that makes it worse is the fanboyism that afflicts lens purchasers just like buyers of camera bodies. There are some people, for instance (such as lightrules/fstopjojo) that vote multiple times for the same lens on sites like fredmiranda.com . It is also tough to get a real read on the characteristics of a lens based on the posts here. You have a mix of fanboys out to convince the world that a lens (or an entire brand) is perfect, and you have valid complaints from purchasers of duds that are not well-balanced by posts from validly happy users, and you have false complaints from trolls to liven things up a bit too.

I trust the opinion of a few people on this site. In the future I am going to make my lens purchases based on information from them, and based on trying things at a store. Alternately, if I can't try something at a store, I know that B & H (my favorite online store) has a great return policy.
 
For the full story on my problems with the Tamron lens... see this...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=19900965

and perticularly these examples of how differntly the lens preforms with my 300D vs. a co-workers 30D...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=20139499

Yeah... well what's making this harder for me is... that I'm really confident that IF I could get the Tamron to focus reasonably well with my 300D, I probably would be very happy with the lens. I just have a major hesitancy to keep this lens and trying to get Tamron to fix it. My main hesitation is this is that this lens WORKS on a 30D (at least with center focus point). However one of my concerns is that if I get Tamron to adjust this lens so that it actualy works with my current camera, will that somehow make it not work well if I should ever upgrade my camera body, etc... To be very fair, I have not yet contacted Tamron with this issue and/or asked them to tell me what their explination for this issue differance in focusing between the 300D and 30D...

So, I feel if I could just get this Tamron to focus even close to correctly on my camera I would not even further consider the Canon, simply because the Tamron's f2.8 and more versital zoom range... I just don't really want to wind up never being able to resolve this issue to my satisfaction... where if I go with Canon.... I'd beat them to death untill they'd make me happy if I couldn't get good focus with the 17-40L lens with my 300D... With the Tamron, I'd never really be very confident I could get Canon to help me with the issue.

I do have one more thing I want to try with the Tamron... I know for sure this lens works very well using the 30D's center focus point, which is Canon's 'high precsion' type... What I want to try is to use one of the 30D's other 'standard' focus points, to see if the focus problem would somehow also be as bad as it is with my 300D... If I would find that the Tamron can't focus well with anything but the 'high precsion' focus point, then I would basicly scrap the whole idea of keeping the Tamron...

Perhaps someone else could either confirm or deny that the Tamron will focus reasonably well on a 20D, 30D, 5D, or 400D when using one of the standard precsion focus points on those cameras??? I can't do further testing with regard to this untill I can get a co-worker to let me use their 20D or 30D...
Jeff Varszegi said:
Sorry, I somehow missed that you've already gotten two of that
lens. I would go for the Canon unhesitatingly then, especially
because it's not THAT much more money. If you really need the
f/2.8, spring for the 17-55mm.

In answer to your question about how much I trust photozone and
other sites, the answer is "a little". I give much more weight to
how the pictures actually look. As Lee Jay has pointed out, there
are some inconsisitencies even in the results from a single site.
In addition they're just using one copy (usually) which is not
exactly a statistically significant sample.

The thing that makes it worse is the fanboyism that afflicts lens
purchasers just like buyers of camera bodies. There are some
people, for instance (such as lightrules/fstopjojo) that vote
multiple times for the same lens on sites like fredmiranda.com .
It is also tough to get a real read on the characteristics of a
lens based on the posts here. You have a mix of fanboys out to
convince the world that a lens (or an entire brand) is perfect, and
you have valid complaints from purchasers of duds that are not
well-balanced by posts from validly happy users, and you have false
complaints from trolls to liven things up a bit too.

I trust the opinion of a few people on this site. In the future I
am going to make my lens purchases based on information from them,
and based on trying things at a store. Alternately, if I can't try
something at a store, I know that B & H (my favorite online store)
has a great return policy.
Click to expand...
 
Hi,

I do not fully trust "test sites". Like you I rather prefer see the result. I will not put in my house living room a MTF chart, but a picture. At the end of the day, this is what really means something: the final result of the picture and the fact YOU are happy with.

Regarding fredmiranda, I find it a very useful site since I only have a look at people giving bad cotes for lenses. That gives me a better idea of the problems you can expect. In other words: 10/10 means nothing to me, but if I compare it to a 7/10, the reason why it is only 7 gives me more than a whole testing site.

newneurone
 
that you have made it your life pursuit to badmouth me at every opportunity. i'm truly privileged. if only you'd realize that throwing mud really only gets your own hands dirty. troll on...
Jeff Varszegi said:
lightrules said:
Jeff Varszegi said:
The thing that makes it worse is the fanboyism that afflicts lens
purchasers just like buyers of camera bodies. There are some
people, for instance (such as lightrules/fstopjojo) that vote
multiple times for the same lens on sites like fredmiranda.com .
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests
 
lightrules said:
that you have made it your life pursuit to badmouth me at every
opportunity. i'm truly privileged. if only you'd realize that
throwing mud really only gets your own hands dirty. troll on...
Click to expand...
I'm not trolling. I made a statement that you can't trust user-review sites like fredmiranda.com, since some of the users cheat-- you're just the best example I know of offhand. It was square on topic, and so was your cheating. Troll on.
lightrules said:
Jeff Varszegi said:
lightrules said:
Jeff Varszegi said:
The thing that makes it worse is the fanboyism that afflicts lens
purchasers just like buyers of camera bodies. There are some
people, for instance (such as lightrules/fstopjojo) that vote
multiple times for the same lens on sites like fredmiranda.com .
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests
Click to expand...
 
I told you, my results with 400D comparing to 350D are considerable better.

I can say on 2.8 the results may be 95%, but from 3.2 up I am very satisfied. But as I told you if you don't need 2.8 or have a better budget to upgrade return it for 17-55mm.

The only thing is that difference for 17-40 to 17-50 in my opinion IS that much. Normally is more than 50% more.....

And one tip: I spent a lot on time anoyed reading and posting on this forum because of this problem as you are doing. Take a decision, or even attempts. It's much better go out to take pictures instead of keeping on forums.

Cheers,

Eduardo.
 
So... have you tried using your Tamron with one of the off center focus points on the 400D? based on all that I'm reading the off center focus points are no better then the center focus points on the 350D... I would be very interested to hear if the poor focus problems of the Tamron are back if/when you use one of the other 8 points available on the 400D... If this would be the case... I would not even consider the Tamron any further... or if I was stuck with one, I would be on the phone to Tamron asking them why..

As for going out and taking pictures... well, I can't just do that anytime I want... but it's pretty easy to sit around and search the internet for more info... I already know that the Tamron on my camera is totaly unacceptable to me... I'm just trying to decide if I should bother with it at all, if I should upgrade camera, or buy a Canon lens...

I can not afford a 17-55 f2.8 IS lens..., so that's not even on the table, unless I win the lottery. I also can not afford a new camera and keeping the Tamron... So it's either go for a 17-40L while keeping my 300D, or buying a 400D and not having any really high quality lens to use...

I'm also waiting to see and/or hear what else Canon may announce at Photokina... (just in case they have something else that I may have interest in). I'm also keeping a eye on where Pentax may be heading...
labao said:
I told you, my results with 400D comparing to 350D are considerable
better.

I can say on 2.8 the results may be 95%, but from 3.2 up I am very
satisfied. But as I told you if you don't need 2.8 or have a better
budget to upgrade return it for 17-55mm.

The only thing is that difference for 17-40 to 17-50 in my opinion
IS that much. Normally is more than 50% more.....

And one tip: I spent a lot on time anoyed reading and posting on
this forum because of this problem as you are doing. Take a
decision, or even attempts. It's much better go out to take
pictures instead of keeping on forums.

Cheers,

Eduardo.
Click to expand...
 
For what it's worth, have a look at page 48 of the October 2006 issue of Popular Photography and Imaging Magazine.

In it they present a case as to why their lens tests are superior to most that we find on line. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with them, however, I have been very happy with the results of some lenses that are generally rated dogs on some internet sites.

Much of a len's value is predicated on what end result is desired.
 
Amazingly enouugh I've never really looked at the MTF charts that Canon provides for it's own lenses... and well after seeing the Canon MTF chart for the Canon 17-40mm f4 "L"... I think they have pretty much convinced me that it's not worth it for me to buy this lens... It's not fast enough and not sharp enough wide open or at the far edges...

So that leaves me still thinking about the best soulution for me... because I'm pretty firmly convinced that that the 17-40 just isnt going to do it for me.
Jeff Varszegi said:
And I have and like the Tamron, so I'm not really all that biased
if I can give this recommendation.

The AF on the Tamron is okay, but on the Canon will be much better.
The build on the Canon is better. The optical quality will
probably be better if you get a good copy, although I think the
Tamron is very nice at f/4 and above too. In addition it can be
used on more cameras now and in the future.

The main advantages the Tamron has are 40-50mm, f/2.8, lighter
weight, and a lower price. However, the Tamron gets a little
softer at the 50mm end (as reported by photozone and borne out by
my own use), and it is not the most stunning at f/2.8 (although it
sharpens up nicely by f/3.5, and is noticeably sharper by f/3.2).
Click to expand...
 
I always use center point, so to me it's the most important.

Now just making some calculations.

Tamron 450.00
Canon 679.00

Difference = 229.00

400D Body =799.00
Let's say you sell you 300D for 450.00

Difference = 349.00

In the end you will invest 120.00 more than buying 17-40L and keeping the 300D. But you will have an updated equipment and be happy.
 
I'd be really surprized if I could get $450 for a two year old 300D that's had over 12,000 shots taken on it. But then I do indeed get the jest of your example.

Right now I am leaning toward doing what your suggesting... It's just a big pill to swallow for me at this time.

Today, (and possibly tomorrow too) I'm going to borrow a 20D and do some testing with off center focus points, so I will know for sure if the problem exitsts or not with the the other focus points that are not 'high precsion'. I also intend to call Tamron and hear what they have to say about the problems I'm having.

It's really hard to give up on this Tamron, simply because it's more or less exactly what I wanted from a kit lens replacement... IF I can get one to focus properly.
labao said:
I always use center point, so to me it's the most important.

Now just making some calculations.

Tamron 450.00
Canon 679.00

Difference = 229.00

400D Body =799.00
Let's say you sell you 300D for 450.00

Difference = 349.00

In the end you will invest 120.00 more than buying 17-40L and
keeping the 300D. But you will have an updated equipment and be
happy.
Click to expand...
 
Look some samples in 2.8 with other af points than center. Tripod mounted, iso 200 and 2.8. I focused in the "washington D.C."

LEFT AF POINT



RIGHT AF POINT



LOWER AF POINT



And other thing I guess you will find poorer af on these points even with other lenses when compared with center af. By the way I only shoot center point.

Honestly man it's the best cost / benefit relation possible. Probably 17-55 will be better but I see that you don't want to spend much.

Cheers,

Eduardo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top