Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon 17-55 2.8 IS vs. Tamron 17-50 2.8

Go to last post
Agreed. I replaced all my Canon and Sigma lens caps with a 3rd party Promaster lens cap that is constructed with the pinch style mechanism like the Tamron. These are not namebrand marked and are all black and work as well as the Canon brand and....well, ducktape will work better than the Sigma lens cap. These caps can be removed with even the deepest hood I own.
 
Could you let us know where you bought the promaster lens cap? I did a google search but most places that carry it do not show a image of the cap. The only place that showed a picture showed a clip style cap and with the promaster name on it.
 
carlk said:
Could you let us know where you bought the promaster lens cap? I
did a google search but most places that carry it do not show a
image of the cap. The only place that showed a picture showed a
clip style cap and with the promaster name on it.
Click to expand...
I got the lens hood from here

http://stores.ebay.co.uk/megadc06_Canon-Lens-Hood_W0QQcolZ4QQdirZ1QQfsubZ2231395QQftidZ2QQtZkm

and lens caps from here (amongst other places)

http://stores.ebay.com/John-Camera-Store_Lens-Accessories_Lens-Cap_W0QQfsubZ9529658
--
Dave.

Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com
 
n/t
 
ellover009 said:
It would be nice if they fixed the distortion on the 17-85IS and
bumped it up to 2.8 aperture.
Click to expand...
I would even be happy if they just bumped it up to f4 provided that they could reduce the distortion and the CA.

It isn't going to happen any time soon, even if Canon could do it. Such a lens would negatively impair the sales of two of their relatively new lenses, the 17-55IS and the 24-105IS. Canon "bean counters" wouldn't justify allowing them to make it.
 
tamron is sold, have to send it ...

The Canon is a nicer lens, very good contrast...The thing that buged me on the tarmon is the very unpleasing bokeh, like the out of focus lights dance in a weird annoying shape... Can't explain, you need to use it to understand.

I got photos ruined because of that background .

Canon has a much pleasing bokeh, is a little sharper wide open so it is more usefull for portraits at f2.8. this is the caveat that made me sell Tamron and buy canon.

If you don't care about wide open , and use it stopped down a bit, and you don't need IS, Tamron is a winner.
 
The Tamron is a good lens, and has a far better price. It's also lighter and uses smaller filters. But the Canon 17-55 is a better lens. Optically and build quality wise they are about the same, but IS is a great feature that can save a lot of shots that you would otherwise loose. Also it has USM with Full Time Manual focus (FTM), and that is also a great feature in an oft used lens. It also garners fewer complains about focus misses.

I bought the Canon because I needed something that would quickly and reliable focus in low light, and give me IS. For me it was worth the extra money. My opinion is that one should spend more money on the lens they use the most.
 
I tested the two together when I bought the Tamron and couldn't see a difference. Except that the colors are a bit warmer on the Tamron. In fact, when I used auto smart fix in Photshop Elements, it would make the Canon pix look like the Tamron, and the Tamron pix would hardly change at all.

I even rented a 24-105 for the weekend. Honestly, I preferred the sharpness of the Tamron.

Also, I can't say enough about the savings in size and weight- those Canons are freaking huge. In this focal length, I mainly am looking at it as a travel lens. It is great for that, easy to carry. It doesn't draw attention to itself, just does it's job.

I have a 50/1.8 if I need a bit better bokeh or speed. But it's not much sharper.

Mine was raazor sharp in focusing right out of the box, dead on with a focus chart. Others have had problems with bad copies, so do a test.

In low light, it is about the same as the 50/1.8, which is to say it hunts a bit. Overall, this lens is a big winner. You're getting L quality for a great price and size.
 
My Tamron is sharper at 2.8 than my 50 1.8 is at 2.8 !

I just could not live with that bokeh at 2.8, I shoot wide open very often to annihilate the background...

But all in all it is an L lens quality for half price. With the canon I got an L optics with ordinary built at L price.
stratobill said:
I tested the two together when I bought the Tamron and couldn't see
a difference. Except that the colors are a bit warmer on the
Tamron. In fact, when I used auto smart fix in Photshop Elements,
it would make the Canon pix look like the Tamron, and the Tamron
pix would hardly change at all.

I even rented a 24-105 for the weekend. Honestly, I preferred the
sharpness of the Tamron.

Also, I can't say enough about the savings in size and weight-
those Canons are freaking huge. In this focal length, I mainly am
looking at it as a travel lens. It is great for that, easy to
carry. It doesn't draw attention to itself, just does it's job.

I have a 50/1.8 if I need a bit better bokeh or speed. But it's not
much sharper.

Mine was raazor sharp in focusing right out of the box, dead on
with a focus chart. Others have had problems with bad copies, so do
a test.

In low light, it is about the same as the 50/1.8, which is to say
it hunts a bit. Overall, this lens is a big winner. You're getting
L quality for a great price and size.
Click to expand...
--
http://1jzgte.zenfolio.com/
 
I bought the brandless caps at Dodds in Cleveland Ohio and at Castle Photo in Toledo.
 
I can't speak for the Tamron, but I do own the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS. It takes great shots! Yes, flare is sometime an issue, but that is probably because the shallow petal-shaped hood can only block out so much unwanted light.

The only drawbacks to the Canon lens are that it's quite large and heavy, and it can attract unwanted attention from nosey security guards and thieves.

But it is the only lens I use on my 30D, so I wanted to do it right.

Robert
 
stratobill said:
I tested the two together when I bought the Tamron and couldn't see
a difference. Except that the colors are a bit warmer on the
Tamron. In fact, when I used auto smart fix in Photshop Elements,
it would make the Canon pix look like the Tamron, and the Tamron
pix would hardly change at all.

I even rented a 24-105 for the weekend. Honestly, I preferred the
sharpness of the Tamron.

Also, I can't say enough about the savings in size and weight-
those Canons are freaking huge. In this focal length, I mainly am
looking at it as a travel lens. It is great for that, easy to
carry. It doesn't draw attention to itself, just does it's job.

I have a 50/1.8 if I need a bit better bokeh or speed. But it's not
much sharper.

Mine was raazor sharp in focusing right out of the box, dead on
with a focus chart. Others have had problems with bad copies, so do
a test.

In low light, it is about the same as the 50/1.8, which is to say
it hunts a bit. Overall, this lens is a big winner. You're getting
L quality for a great price and size.
Click to expand...
I also found i was using my Tamron a lot more than my 24-105L because it seemed sharper, even though i dont really like the FL. i prefer longer than 50mm. I also found i used my 24-105L a lot in places like museums as i could shoot down to 1/8 because of the IS so thats why i went for the 17-55IS. Best of both worlds.

I miss the small size of the Tamron though but the 17-55IS still puts a smile on my face when i look at my shots on my PC
--
Dave.

Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com
 
to share my experiences:

i've owned only three lenses, so I'm by no means an expert, but I bought the Tamron to replace the 18-55 that came with my 20d. i absolutely love this lens. the canon 17-55 was too pricey for me (not to mention large). i'm sure the canon lens is fantastic, but i could not be happier with my decision. the Tamron seems to focus slightly faster than my 50 1.8, it seems to hunt less in lower light and overall, the lens seems only slightly less sharp than my 50 1.8 at similar apertures.

that being said, i was a little wary about the purchase after reading some problems that people were having with back/front focusing, but that seems to just be a QC problem, as mine is absolutely fine on the 20d.

bottom line: love it!
 
I decided on the Tamron and have been using it for about a month. Here are some of my pro's and cons.

The final determining factors for me were a combination of the size, weight and price. First off, the Canon was twice the price. Enough said... Second, the Canon was just huge! I wanted this lens to be my walk-around lens, and the Canon was just monsterous. I also take allot of my photos on backpacking trips, so the size and weight mean even more to me.

Overall, I'm happy with the Tamaron so far. I'm no expert, but image quality seems to be great. I would love to have the IS capability of the Canon, but I just couldn't justify it considering the size and cost that came with it. So to make up for that extra bit of handheld capability, I invested in a great light-weight Slik tripod with the extra money that I saved on the purchase. I don't mind using tripod or a monopod when shooting in low-light.

My only gripe so far is that the lens seems to have to hunt for the proper focus. From what I've read, the Canon's AF performance would be much better. But once again, at a big price... For now, I'll get used to it.
 
I purchased a 17-55 about 2 weeks ago. I could not be happier.

I spent friday/saturday at the grand canyon and took over 1000 photo's. Half of those were tripod bracketed. The other half were handheld. Under normal circumstances I would never hand hold. Hand holding shots with my 17-40L always resulted in some bad/poorly focused shots.

The 17-55 performed like magic. Not one out of focus handheld shot. The IS is well worth the extra money. And the freedom... The freedom to not have to lug my tripod everywhere and then have to setup shots. The freedom to be instantly creative and knowing that focus/sharpness will be there. I would rather lug a slightly heavier lens around than my tripod any day.

Reanimator
--

 
Glad to learn that the Tamron 17-50 worked out for you. I decided not to keep the Canon 17-55 because of size, weight and price issues. I tried the Tamron 17-50, but couldn't get it to autofocus with my 20D. Tamron has established quite a large group of unhappy owners because of poor autofocus calibration. I'm working on trying to get a good copy. The one I tested was not sharp at f/2.8 and had bokeh at 50mm that was not on a par with other 50mm f/2.8 lenses.

I purchased the new Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro. So far it is outperforming both the Tamron and many Canon lenses. I'm in the middle of testing, but my experiences so far are here:
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/17-85compare/index.htm

--
William Castleman
http://www.wlcastleman.com
 
Torque124 said:
That Sigma is an inferior product compared to the Tamron. You
should have exchanged for another Tamron
http://1jzgte.zenfolio.com/
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you are confused. You must be thinking of the old Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 with the 67mm lens cap.

I'm talking about the new Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro lens with the 72mm lens cap. I tested the new Sigma, and it gave better 50% MTF performance at 50mm than the 17-55 EF-S Canon. Look at the portrait tests with the mannequin at f/2.8.

I'm still testing it. I took it to photograph a graduation, and it performed as well as any piece of f/2.8 L-glass I ever owned.

--
William Castleman
http://www.wlcastleman.com
 
William Castleman said:
Torque124 said:
That Sigma is an inferior product compared to the Tamron. You
should have exchanged for another Tamron
http://1jzgte.zenfolio.com/
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you are confused. You must be thinking of the old Sigma
18-50 f/2.8 with the 67mm lens cap.

I'm talking about the new Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro lens with
the 72mm lens cap. I tested the new Sigma, and it gave better 50%
MTF performance at 50mm than the 17-55 EF-S Canon. Look at the
portrait tests with the mannequin at f/2.8.
I'm still testing it. I took it to photograph a graduation, and it
performed as well as any piece of f/2.8 L-glass I ever owned.

--
William Castleman
http://www.wlcastleman.com
Click to expand...
So many people continue to make this mistake. Even if the new Sigma wasn't sharper than the Tamron, I found many other reasons to prefer it. Better build quality, focuses closer, faster and quieter, zoom turns in the same direction as most Canon lenses, comes with a lens pouch that Tamron doesn't provide, the filter size matches with more of my other Canon lenses and was considerably cheaper ($117) than the Tamron when I bought it in November.
 
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