Tamron 17-35mm vs Canon 10-18mm

I am trying to buy an inexpensive wide angle lens for my canon t3i. My main purpose for the lens is my trip to peru so it will be used mostly outdoors for wide angle landscapes.

I am debating between the 17-35mm by tamron and the canon 10-18. They are around the same price but vary in the wide angle. I am wondering what I would be sacrificing with image quality if at all with the tamron lens because it doesn't have image stability.

Basically what I want to know is what is going to give me the best image quality for a wide angle shot for landscapes such as Machu Picchu:)

The Tamron 17-35mm is designed for full frame bodies such as the 5D Mk3. On a crop body such as your T3i, it is about as wide as a typical kit lens.

The Canon 10-18 is an ultra-wide. I would get this lens for outdoor wide view.

Well the tamron 17-35 isn't really a very wide angle lens on the t3i. I have one and use it on a 6D and 5D where it is a wide angle. My copy works fine and produces some great shot, but it is an old lens.
For a crop body the tamron 17-50 f2.8 would probably be a better bet. I had one when I had my t4i and used it a lot, it has great IQ and a constant f2.8 throughout the range and gives you a bit more reach.
But again, 17mm at the wide end isn't exactly ultra wide on a crop,the 17-50 is more a 'standard zoom' .
So if you really want ultra wide the Canon 10-18 or 10-22 are your best options. I had the sigma 10-20 with my t4i but was never really that impressed with my copy.

Good luck with your decision!

You can't beat the 10-18 for the price. The IQ is quite good if you have decent light. I hope that you're taking another longer "walk around" lens. The 10-18 doesn't provide much range.

The 10-18 is a really good lens, especially for the money. The IS is also great for landscapes, allowing you to shoot stopped down a bit, and still keep the ISO low, even in fading light. At 10mm, I can shoot handheld down to about 1/2 second. You could pair it with the 18-55 IS STM, and get good quality coverage from ultra-wide to modest telephoto really cheaply.

ebphotography wrote:

I am trying to buy an inexpensive wide angle lens for my canon t3i. My main purpose for the lens is my trip to peru so it will be used mostly outdoors for wide angle landscapes.

I am debating between the 17-35mm by tamron and the canon 10-18. They are around the same price but vary in the wide angle. I am wondering what I would be sacrificing with image quality if at all with the tamron lens because it doesn't have image stability.

Basically what I want to know is what is going to give me the best image quality for a wide angle shot for landscapes such as Machu Picchu:)

As everybody else says - the 10-18 is a real winner. Canon hit it out of the park with this one, and they've been cannibalizing sales of their 10-22 with this inexpensive lens.

The Tamron 17-35 as mentioned is for FF. I've always suspected and now I know that lenses designed for crop perform much better than those for FF. My Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS is nearly identical in sharpness to my EF 24-70/2.8 II on my 70D. On my 6D, the 24-70/2.8 has much higher resolution. In fact, this lens, or the Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC would be excellent as well.

a 10-20 or thereabouts is a true UWA for crop. 17 is not wide enough, but this lens makes for a good compromise if you've only got 1 lens to choose. 10-20 can come close to walk-around, but not quite.

I have a Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 for crop and love it. I could highly recommend this lens in used versions, even though the other poster here wasn't impressed. I had a 3.5 for a while I didn't think was as good, but I may have had a duff copy. I shoot interiors for my company, and I never traded that lens in as nothing was that much better. Not until I went to FF could I make a noticeable improvement.

So really, bottom line - not the Tamron 17-35. It wasn't even that good of a lens when new.

Above examples of the Sigma 10-20 on XTi or 60D.

Above Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS on 60D or 70D.

24-70 performance on 70D

Sigma 17-50 performance on 70D - $600 vs $2200

The advantage you'd have with a lens like the 17-50 is an aperture of 2.8. This is pretty important if shooting inside without flash. For wide angle there's the Tokina 11-16/2.8, which might be getting lower in price now that they've replaced it with the 11-20. A true wide angle is very handy when you're in cramped spaces. My 10-20 can make a bathroom look big enough to roller skate in!