18-55 IS vs. Tam. 17-50 - no way!

4u2c · Dec 8, 2007

goldbean said:
I'm glad you like your Tamron 17-50, but your experience has been far
different than mine.

My 2 Tamron 17-50 copies front focused on my 40D and, even when
focused correctly, were very soft at 2.8. As a general matter, the
focus was inconsistent and inaccurate on both copies whenever
conditions weren't ideal (particularly in low light and/or at close
distances). My 18-55 IS focuses much, much better and has a shorter
minimum focus distance. The build quality of the Tamron is better,
but the quality control is much worse.

When focused correctly, the Tamron is sharp and contrasty at least
from f/4 on. IMO, if the Tamron is a 9 on a scale of 10 for IQ, the
18-55 IS is at least an 8-8.5, if not a 9. Overall, the Tamron has
the minor edge in sharpness/contrast. The 18-55 IS has better bokeh,
and I prefer the colors. At the wide end, I think the 18-55 IS is
better, and at the tele end, I think the Tamron is better. The
Achilles heel on my 18-55 IS copy seems to be 55mm wide open, but
55mm at f/8 looks great.

I thought the Tamron 17-50 would be the perfect wide zoom lens for my
needs, but I'm glad I waited to make my decision. Overall, I think
the 18-55 IS is the better lens, and at half the price it's an
absolute steal. If only they could give me a consistent f/2.8, I'd
pay double the price!

Please post some sample picture from your 18-55 f/5.6 IS.

Thanks

mbv · Dec 8, 2007

My experience is consistent with your samples: at close range the 18-55 IS is not bad at all.
mbv

goldbean · Dec 8, 2007

I'd be happy to see if I have something that works. What aspect(s) of IQ are you interested in seeing demonstrated by the samples?

4u2c said:
Please post some sample picture from your 18-55 f/5.6 IS.

Thanks

4u2c · Dec 8, 2007

goldbean said:
4u2c said:

Please post some sample picture from your 18-55 f/5.6 IS.

Thanks

Click to expand...

Samples that will impress me from 18-55 f/5.6 IS. I might buy it for a gift this Xmas.

Thanks again.

mattr · Dec 8, 2007

I also added the 18-55IS to my Tamron 17-50. Preliminary observations:

+Tamron: sharper at the edges/corners, better contrast/color, less distortion, less vignetting

+Canon: amazingly sharp in the center at all FL, excellent focusing accuracy and reproducibility with my 40D, amazingly good IS: seems more effective than in my old 17-85 and almost totally silent (not only when compared to the noisy 70-200/4IS)

Overall, the new 18-55IS is IMO significantly better than any 17-85 I ever tried. I'm very happy with it.

RedFox88 · Dec 8, 2007

mbv · Dec 8, 2007

mattr said:
I also added the 18-55IS to my Tamron 17-50. Preliminary observations:

+Tamron: sharper at the edges/corners, better contrast/color, less
distortion, less vignetting

+Canon: amazingly sharp in the center at all FL, excellent focusing
accuracy and reproducibility with my 40D, amazingly good IS: seems
more effective than in my old 17-85 and almost totally silent (not
only when compared to the noisy 70-200/4IS)

Overall, the new 18-55IS is IMO significantly better than any 17-85 I
ever tried. I'm very happy with it.

Agree on the absolutely silent IS. Sharpness at the center is good at close range, but not in distant pictures. Also I am not sure about focusing consistency, but I got a habit of checking with the Katz split-prism screen and (automatically) refocusing if needed. Thus I cannot comment on that. Never had an 17-85, thus cannot comment on that either. The optical performance in distant shots is what has sent the 18-55IS back to Amazon.

mbv

goldbean · Dec 9, 2007

4u2c said:
Samples that will impress me from 18-55 f/5.6 IS. I might buy it for
a gift this Xmas.

Thanks again.

I don't know if I'm a good enough photographer to do that, and most of the shots I've taken so far haven't been in ideal conditions (high ISO, low light, etc.) or of ideal subjects. This is also my first time posting samples, so sorry if I screw it up.

Here's what I can contribute:

All the following samples were shot in RAW with a 40D and the 18-55 IS handheld. I opened them in DPP and converted without any PP (no noise reduction, contrast/levels adjustments, etc.). The picture style is Standard with the default settings.

First is a 100% crop, 18mm, 1/250, f/9, ISO 100, trimmed in DPP and converted:

As I mentioned before, I think the lens is weakest at 55mm wide open. Here are two examples of what you can expect when shooting there in ambient light at high ISO. These were resized when converted in DPP.

55mm, 1/20, f/5.6, ISO 1600:

55mm, 1/60, f/5.6, ISO 1600:

I told you the subjects weren't ideal.

Also, unlike the OP, I shoot at shorter distances, so my samples reflect that.

I hope this helps.

Hodgjy · Dec 10, 2007

I disagree. My Tamron was an excellent copy. I tested it very thoroughly after reading many reports of front-focusing, decentering, softness wideopen, field curvature, low-light focusing problems, and flash exposure problems.

Mine was excellent. Very sharp (although some problems in the corners). It was as good or better than many examples I've seen posted in this forum.

My new 18-55 is just as sharp as the Tamron 17-50; however, the contrast is a little behind.

mbv said:
Could be bad vs good copy in your and my case.

Cheers,
mbv

--
My gear is listed in my profile. My name is Jay.

Hodgjy · Dec 10, 2007

I disagree. My Tamron was a very sharp lens indeed, however, the Canon is better in the corners. I do agree agree with you that the Tamron has less distortion. The Tamron also has better contrast, but I didn't care for the warm color cast. I more prefer the cooler color cast found in many Canon lenses.

mattr said:
I also added the 18-55IS to my Tamron 17-50. Preliminary observations:

+Tamron: sharper at the edges/corners, better contrast/color, less
distortion, less vignetting

+Canon: amazingly sharp in the center at all FL, excellent focusing
accuracy and reproducibility with my 40D, amazingly good IS: seems
more effective than in my old 17-85 and almost totally silent (not
only when compared to the noisy 70-200/4IS)

Overall, the new 18-55IS is IMO significantly better than any 17-85 I
ever tried. I'm very happy with it.

--
My gear is listed in my profile. My name is Jay.

2stepsteve · Dec 10, 2007

Here we go again... People comparing a £100 lens to a £250 lens. Strange.. anyway..

I'm really looking forward to recieving my 17-50IS, coming from the kit lens i'm very excited that for such a cheap price I can get a jump in IQ and have IS at the same time. Before the 17-50IS came along I was looking at spending twice as much on a tamrom or the sigma.. prices which I can't afford.

Hodgjy · Dec 10, 2007

Pricing doesn't mean anything. It's all marketing and what the manufacturer thinks they can get for it.

For example, is the Canon 17-55 IS more than two times better than the Tamron 17-50? Maybe. Maybe not.

How about the Canon 50 1.8. That lens costs $79. Does it take pictures 1/10 as good as the Canon 17-55?

Pricing is worst way to compare lens quality. Pictures are the best.

2stepsteve said:
Here we go again... People comparing a £100 lens to a £250 lens.
Strange.. anyway..

--
My gear is listed in my profile. My name is Jay.

mattr · Dec 10, 2007

Hodgjy said:
I disagree. My Tamron was a very sharp lens indeed, however, the
Canon is better in the corners.

Sample variation?

Hodgjy said:
I do agree agree with you that the
Tamron has less distortion. The Tamron also has better contrast, but
I didn't care for the warm color cast. I more prefer the cooler
color cast found in many Canon lenses.

True. But I actually like the Tamron's slightly warmer color. I had a Sigma 18-50/2.8 long ago and I absolutely hated the strong yellowish cast.

mattr · Dec 10, 2007

mbv said:
The optical performance in distant shots is what has
sent the 18-55IS back to Amazon.

Probably again sample variation. I checked again: My copy of the 18-55IS is excellent in the center in distant shots.

carlk · Dec 10, 2007

It should be pretty obvious now either op has a (rare) bad copy or it’s just his imagination (strangely he never showed a sample of how bad are the images he got). Everyone else and all the reviewers seem to have much better results than what he said he got. Give him the benefit of doubt that he was not trolling in the beginning he is definitely trolling now if he still insists 18-55 is as bad as he described.

mattr said:
mbv said:

The optical performance in distant shots is what has
sent the 18-55IS back to Amazon.

Click to expand...

Probably again sample variation. I checked again: My copy of the
18-55IS is excellent in the center in distant shots.

mbv · Dec 10, 2007

carlk said:
mattr said:

mbv said:

The optical performance in distant shots is what has
sent the 18-55IS back to Amazon.

Click to expand...

Probably again sample variation. I checked again: My copy of the
18-55IS is excellent in the center in distant shots.

Click to expand...

OK. I understand that those, who believe that moon landings were faked, are not going to be convinced no matter what... Still here are 100% crops: left - Tamron 17mm at 2.8, center - Canon 18mm at 5.6 (yes! 5.6), right - Tamron 17mm at 5.6. The cropped area is about half way between the center and the top of the frame.

mbv

sarlo100 · Dec 10, 2007

You must have a pretty poor copy of the 18-55 IS. That's a huge difference. Even my old 18-55 kit wouldn't present that poorly at 5.6, and it certainly had enough issues to make me find a better lens a while back.

CDMc · Dec 10, 2007

Your copy was like mine - didn't focus properly. I've sent mine back for a replacement. The shots I've seen from those lucky enough not to suffer from QA problems, are in a different league to your post.

The guy how responded to my question had some great shots - very sharp! and hand held to boot.

See link:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=25932750

RicksAstro · Dec 10, 2007

Thanks for the examples.

It looks like you are getting the same thing as I was...severe front focusing at 18mm. Did you try manual focusing? When I did that, my results were competitive with the 17-55 even.

Last year when I tried a Tammy 17-50, I had the same issue...results were just terrible!

Neither one of these situations are acceptable IMO. My 40D is a superb focuser with every lens I've thrown at it...it can even to indoor basketball with a 80 f1.8 wide open and just nail the focus. But I can't focus on, as they say, the broad side of a barn with the 18-55 wide open at 18mm. At shorter distances, it's not very noticeable, and at longer focal lengths, it's great.

Rick

4u2c · Dec 10, 2007

goldbean said:
4u2c said:

Samples that will impress me from 18-55 f/5.6 IS. I might buy it for
a gift this Xmas.

Thanks again.

Click to expand...

I don't know if I'm a good enough photographer to do that, and most
of the shots I've taken so far haven't been in ideal conditions (high
ISO, low light, etc.) or of ideal subjects. This is also my first
time posting samples, so sorry if I screw it up.

Here's what I can contribute:

All the following samples were shot in RAW with a 40D and the 18-55
IS handheld. I opened them in DPP and converted without any PP (no
noise reduction, contrast/levels adjustments, etc.). The picture
style is Standard with the default settings.

First is a 100% crop, 18mm, 1/250, f/9, ISO 100, trimmed in DPP and
converted:

As I mentioned before, I think the lens is weakest at 55mm wide open.
Here are two examples of what you can expect when shooting there in
ambient light at high ISO. These were resized when converted in DPP.

55mm, 1/20, f/5.6, ISO 1600:

55mm, 1/60, f/5.6, ISO 1600:

I told you the subjects weren't ideal. Also, unlike the OP, I
shoot at shorter distances, so my samples reflect that.

I hope this helps.

It's a sharp lens but the constrast does'nt attract my attention (maybe lack of UD element). I also found out that front element rotate, using PL/ Cokin filters will be a hazzle and manual focusing is so difficult too. But the price is good for a IS lens.

Maybe I'm just going to get a gift certificate for a gift so, he can decide what to buy for Christmas.

Thank you again.

Rodrigo

18-55 IS vs. Tam. 17-50 - no way!

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts