andyg.
Well-known member
Please post pics .... I own a 40d and looking to find the best option.
--
Andy Gabriel
Madison, WI
--
Andy Gabriel
Madison, WI
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
tamron 17-50 & 85 1.8 vs. 17-55 is
- Thread starter andyg.
- Start date
caterpillar
Veteran Member
Basically the 17-55 IS and the tamron 17-50 are even in terms of IQ. Both will give you sharp, contrasty and amazing images. The 17-55, however, has ring USM, FTM, and IS. The tamron is smaller, lighter, cheaper for the same IQ. Of course the tamron gives up IS, FTM, ring USM. But is not problematical in terms of flare and the 17-55 IS is larger and heavier. So, you see, there are trade offs. You just have to take your pick as to which you is important to you.
I got the tamron 17-50 because I wanted something small, light, and inexpensive for my 400d but packs a lot of punch optically. It also will complement my 2 lens set, the 10-22 and the 24-105L IS. It will provide the speed and middle ground that the 24-105L doesn't have.
Now, the 85 f1.8 usm, is a different beast. It complements any of the 2 lenses in your selection. It's not really an either-or, but the lens to give you the reach and speed and DOF control for portraiture. A 17-55 or 17-50 will go well with the 85 f1.8 usm. You should get the prime to add to the zoom. The 85 f1.8 usm alone will limit your options to portraiture. It's hard to shoot a group shot with an 85mm lens.
So, get either the 17-55 or 17-50. Both are good lenses. Add the 85 f1.8 later.
--
--------------------
- Caterpillar
007peter
Forum Pro
Tamron is truely a great lens as is the 85mm f/1.8. However, after owning and using both in the field. I would rather have one canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS. If money is not a problem, I consider the extra cost for 17-55 f/2.8 as a good investment.
Regardless which zoom you went for, I would still buy either a 85mm f/1.8 or a 100mm f/2. If you love taking portait like I do, then NOTHING comes close to a fast prime for portrait work.
--
FANBOY(i)sm is a NEUROSIS, Get Help!
Regardless which zoom you went for, I would still buy either a 85mm f/1.8 or a 100mm f/2. If you love taking portait like I do, then NOTHING comes close to a fast prime for portrait work.
--
FANBOY(i)sm is a NEUROSIS, Get Help!
dylanbarnhart
Senior Member
The bokeh of the 85 f1.8 is amazing. Neither of the other F2.8 lenses can match.
When you need to shoot indoor sports, the 85 f1.8 will get the picture, while the other two won't. That's the real difference. It has 1 and 1/3 stops advantage, faster focus, and longer reach.
But then IS is useful in some other situations, like museum shots where they don't allow setting up a tripod, or night time scenery shots. So IS is one photography tool, and F1.8 is another tool. You just have to consider which tool you need for your subject.
Of course you can get amazing photos with any of these 3 lenses. Looking at a few samples doesn't mean anything - just statistically insignificant. With that said, here's the ability to pick a person out of a crowd that F2.8 can't do:
When you need to shoot indoor sports, the 85 f1.8 will get the picture, while the other two won't. That's the real difference. It has 1 and 1/3 stops advantage, faster focus, and longer reach.
But then IS is useful in some other situations, like museum shots where they don't allow setting up a tripod, or night time scenery shots. So IS is one photography tool, and F1.8 is another tool. You just have to consider which tool you need for your subject.
Of course you can get amazing photos with any of these 3 lenses. Looking at a few samples doesn't mean anything - just statistically insignificant. With that said, here's the ability to pick a person out of a crowd that F2.8 can't do:
andyg.
Well-known member
Thanks ....looks like I'll shell out the extra duckets and get the 17-55
--
Andy Gabriel
Madison, WI
--
Andy Gabriel
Madison, WI
Gediminas 8
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,133
- Reaction score
- 66
Can you elaborate please? What is it that you miss in this combination of lenses that the 17-55 addresses?
The question is from another - happy - owner of the 17-50 and 85/1.8. I have no desire for the expensive EF-S.
For the OP - I'd love to post samples from the lenses here but I am not sure if my subjects would alow it.
--
A travel gallery of my country and some others:
http://www.pbase.com/lithuania
Like your travel gallery. Any of which is shot using the 17-50? Thanks
Andy, I own the 17-55, and canon 85. I also own the tamron 28-75.
When I first bought the 17-55, I felt that the IS was wasted. I thought Its not that useful for that focal length except museums and dark churches.
Recently I took a nature trip to the easter sierras. In good light, i was shooting at f11-f13, for the DOF. at ISO 100, I had shutter speeds of 1/80th to 1/150 of second. Then I had to take some pictures in the shade at 1/30 of second, so I put the tripod off, turned off the IS, and took my pics. I forgot to turn the IS back on for the next 20 pictures or so. Well, guess what, none of those images are suitable for 8x12 print. even though the look sharp at 4x6, with any closer inspection, they are not. I am under 40, have very steady hands (my job requires me to) with a very hand holdable camera and lens. The IS still make a difference for any sort of an enlargement, in what many would consider safe shutter speed range. at the end of the day, you will end up with more keepers and more good images with the 17-55, and I think its worth it over the tamron.
You can look at the images from this trip here.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/11731152@N00/sets/72157602316494845/
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/11731152@N00/
When I first bought the 17-55, I felt that the IS was wasted. I thought Its not that useful for that focal length except museums and dark churches.
Recently I took a nature trip to the easter sierras. In good light, i was shooting at f11-f13, for the DOF. at ISO 100, I had shutter speeds of 1/80th to 1/150 of second. Then I had to take some pictures in the shade at 1/30 of second, so I put the tripod off, turned off the IS, and took my pics. I forgot to turn the IS back on for the next 20 pictures or so. Well, guess what, none of those images are suitable for 8x12 print. even though the look sharp at 4x6, with any closer inspection, they are not. I am under 40, have very steady hands (my job requires me to) with a very hand holdable camera and lens. The IS still make a difference for any sort of an enlargement, in what many would consider safe shutter speed range. at the end of the day, you will end up with more keepers and more good images with the 17-55, and I think its worth it over the tamron.
You can look at the images from this trip here.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/11731152@N00/sets/72157602316494845/
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/11731152@N00/
StuartBell
Senior Member
I have the 17-50 and the 100/2.
In the UK, both that pair and the 17-55IS cost around the same price.
As for which is the more useful, IMHO there's no contest.
Sure, the 17-55 is nice, but I'd rather spend the price difference on another good lens.
Stuart
--
- -
In the UK, both that pair and the 17-55IS cost around the same price.
As for which is the more useful, IMHO there's no contest.
Sure, the 17-55 is nice, but I'd rather spend the price difference on another good lens.
Stuart
--
- -
William DIllard
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,492
- Reaction score
- 77
I like that shot!
Gediminas 8
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,133
- Reaction score
- 66
Thanks!
Actually none of those come from the Tamron, as I only got it in May, and haven't uploaded much new work to the gallery since.
However, I have now accumulated a substantial number of new images which I want to display, and will just have to find time to upload them. Many are from the 17-50.
--
A travel gallery of my country and some others:
http://www.pbase.com/lithuania
Gediminas 8
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,133
- Reaction score
- 66
The images were taken using the 28-135 IS, 10-22, 18-55 and 70-300 IS lenses, as well as a Canon G3 P&S and a film SLR.
--
A travel gallery of my country and some others:
http://www.pbase.com/lithuania
007peter
Forum Pro
I have alot of 85mm f/1.8 sample, but they are very personal photo of my girlfriend so I can't share them here.
The main advantage of 17-55is comes in 3 folds for me: (1) faster and more reliable autofocusing in low lights (2) image stabilization that comes in handy when you shoot @f/8 for optimal sharpness, but resulting in very slow shutter speed, (3) 17-55is has the BEST BOKEH I've seen on a "standard" zoom (not referring to telephone zoom like 70-200 F4/is).
While the tamron 17-50 is a great lens, its has trouble autofocusing in the lowlight. I don't have 100% confidence in its autofocusing ability, I find myself taking extra photos to compensate for the 20% miss rate. I"m also not a big fan of the Tamron 17-50 bokeh. More specificically, I don't like the way it render the BIG CIRCULAR HIGHLIGHTS. With either canon 85mm f/1.8 or canon 17-55is, my out-of-focus-highlight becomes a beautiful "well-defined" circular dot. With my tamron, that dot is not well-defined but mushy. Worst, sometimes I get 2-4 inner circles within my circular highlights. Difficult to explain, but I'll see if I can find some photos that is not of my girlfriend to illustrate this.
milocat
Active member
You'll hear lots of opinions. Here are a couple of tests; judge for yourself. I actually had the lenses. Tamron 17-50 vs. Sigma 17-70, then the same Sigma vs. Canon 17-55mm.
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=638947131&size=l
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=661866592&size=l
Milo
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=638947131&size=l
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=661866592&size=l
Milo
andyg.
Well-known member
wow...nice comparison- looks like the sigma holds it's own very well.
Thanks.
--
Andy Gabriel
Madison, WI
Thanks.
--
Andy Gabriel
Madison, WI
I have both and find that I use the 17-50 about 80% of the time and the 85 f/1.8 about 3%. The 85mm comes into its own for outdoor portraiture and low light. I find the focal length a bit long for indoors and so would rather have a 50 f/1.4 for that. The 85 f/1.8 does have an issue with CA in high contrast situations and for that reason it doesn't get used much for compressed landscapes.
There are two reasons that I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 instead of the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Cost and weight. I would love to have the IS, but I take my camera nearly everywhere and like to keep it light, especially when backpacking. The Tamron is very sharp, focuses fast enough, is small, light, and cheap. It's a tough bargain to beat. However, if money were no object I might just own the Canon instead.
You can find photos that are mostly from the 17-50 at these links:
http://public.fotki.com/ttl-biz/pub/olympic-hike-2007/
http://public.fotki.com/ttl-biz/pub/portraiture/
-Gene L.
http://ttl-biz.com
I am not convinced that creativity can be taught. However, I do believe that it can be coaxed from its hiding place.
milocat
Active member
It does. I own the Sigma because I like the close focusing, and I bought the Tamron for my son, found that it wasn't a good lens, returned the Tamron, and bought him the Canon, mostly due to the constant 2.8 aperture and IS.
I'm sure that there are good Tamrons out there, but in a different thread, I found that a LOT of them have quality issues. My new strategy is to buy from a local camera store, and try the lens right in the store, and see the pics on my laptop.
If I had it to do all over again, what would I buy? The Sigma. But I'm rarely without a tripod, and for indoor people shots, I have the 50 1.8.
Milo
I'm sure that there are good Tamrons out there, but in a different thread, I found that a LOT of them have quality issues. My new strategy is to buy from a local camera store, and try the lens right in the store, and see the pics on my laptop.
If I had it to do all over again, what would I buy? The Sigma. But I'm rarely without a tripod, and for indoor people shots, I have the 50 1.8.
Milo
silverbluemx
Well-known member
Got the 85/1.8 with a 30D so here are some samples (full gallery at http://www.mstorn.net/gallery.php?page=ph_071013_elsa_plb )
Another gallery ( http://www.mstorn.net/gallery.php?page=ecl_hhstarac ) :
Look at the EXIF on the last gallery : 1/60sec f/1.8 3200 ISO. When you need a fast lens, you need a fast lens...
Bottom line : it does have CA and purple fringing issues at f/1.8 and f/2 but it's a lovely lens for outdoors portraits and concert photography...
Depends on what you need. I pair it with a 30/1.4 and I'm set for low-light.
But if you want to shoot mainly low-light static landscapes, interiors, and need the zoom capability etc... you might better get the 17-55 IS though. What I'm trying to say is that if you think you need the 85/1.8, it won't dissapoint you...
--
SilverblueMX (France)
http://www.mstorn.net
Another gallery ( http://www.mstorn.net/gallery.php?page=ecl_hhstarac ) :
Look at the EXIF on the last gallery : 1/60sec f/1.8 3200 ISO. When you need a fast lens, you need a fast lens...
Bottom line : it does have CA and purple fringing issues at f/1.8 and f/2 but it's a lovely lens for outdoors portraits and concert photography...
Depends on what you need. I pair it with a 30/1.4 and I'm set for low-light.
But if you want to shoot mainly low-light static landscapes, interiors, and need the zoom capability etc... you might better get the 17-55 IS though. What I'm trying to say is that if you think you need the 85/1.8, it won't dissapoint you...
--
SilverblueMX (France)
http://www.mstorn.net
Where's the question here? It's pretty obvious that for a photographer, the range from 17 to 85 mm is more important than the range from 17 to 55mm.
Whoops... forget... what matters is IQ and Boke, eh! and squniting at giant enlargements on computer screens, and spending as much money as possible, and then trying to find someone to impress.
Actually taking pictures falls off the radar screen.
But, in case it's a serious question, pick the new Sigma 18-50mm macro over the Tamron.
BAK
Whoops... forget... what matters is IQ and Boke, eh! and squniting at giant enlargements on computer screens, and spending as much money as possible, and then trying to find someone to impress.
Actually taking pictures falls off the radar screen.
But, in case it's a serious question, pick the new Sigma 18-50mm macro over the Tamron.
BAK
Yes, Sigma has very good lenses, just make sure you get a copy focusing correctly.
My experience is the Sigma is a hit and miss, sometimes back/front focus, sometimes spot on!?
Have no prob´s with my 10-20mm or 30mm though.
Never experienced any AF trouble with any of all the Canons I´ve owned/used.
Kind regards
Mike
--
Sorry for sometimes poor spelling!
40D
10-20
17-55 IS
30 1.4
85 1.8
430EX
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum