Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    464

    Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 - VS - Canon 18-55mm kit lens

    Greetings!

    Whats the point of owning a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 when one already owns a Canon 18-55mm kit lens? I understand that the Tamron has a constant aperture of f/2.8 which is quite nice to have.

    HOWEVER, the zoom range is not really a big difference from both lenses. While the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 shoots some amazing photos and I decide to purchase this lens. I know that I will end up using the Tamron more than the Canon 18-55mm kit lens and end up leaving the Canon kit lens in the cabinet to gather dust.

    Is it worth spending for a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 if one already has the Canon 18-55mm kit lens? Is it worth sacrificing big bucks JUST for the constant f/2.8?

    At this point, I would rather save up on the finance and get some other lens. Just a personal opinion.

    What are your thoughts?

    Canon Rebel XTi 400D, 18-55mm Kit lens, 50mm f/1.8, Canon L 70-200mm/2.8 IS USM, Canon macro 100mm/2.8
    Lowepro Slingshot AW 300, minipod, CF cards, B+W polarizing filter f-pro MRC, Cokin filters

    On the list: 1.4x tele-extender, Canon 580EX flash, *LCD protector, CF card reader, Canon EF-S 10-22mm (wide angle lens), Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    2,192
    Did you read any of the other threads before you started this post
    Canon 350D l EF-S 10-22 l EF-S 17-55 l EF 50 f/1.8 l EF 70-200 2.8 IS l 430EX l

    Fornography

    www.vicwrx.com.au

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    464
    Quote Originally Posted by forno View Post
    Did you read any of the other threads before you started this post
    Ofcourse, my dear friend

    Canon Rebel XTi 400D, 18-55mm Kit lens, 50mm f/1.8, Canon L 70-200mm/2.8 IS USM, Canon macro 100mm/2.8
    Lowepro Slingshot AW 300, minipod, CF cards, B+W polarizing filter f-pro MRC, Cokin filters

    On the list: 1.4x tele-extender, Canon 580EX flash, *LCD protector, CF card reader, Canon EF-S 10-22mm (wide angle lens), Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    2,192
    Why the question then??
    Canon 350D l EF-S 10-22 l EF-S 17-55 l EF 50 f/1.8 l EF 70-200 2.8 IS l 430EX l

    Fornography

    www.vicwrx.com.au

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    464
    Quote Originally Posted by forno View Post
    Why the question then??
    I am aware that the Tamron is the ideal candidate to replace the kit lens. Im just wondering why others would own both lenses with a not so different range.

    I'm putting the big bang on the constant aperture. But how does this justify spending / sacrificing extra money for it. Personally, if I already owned the kit lens, I would have spent / saved for a longer zoom and perhaps constant aperture. JUST MY insight into it. Just looking to expand my thoughts.

    Forno, perhaps you (and others) could shed some light on this matter, since you've recently purchased the Tamron and a current owner of the kit lens.

    Canon Rebel XTi 400D, 18-55mm Kit lens, 50mm f/1.8, Canon L 70-200mm/2.8 IS USM, Canon macro 100mm/2.8
    Lowepro Slingshot AW 300, minipod, CF cards, B+W polarizing filter f-pro MRC, Cokin filters

    On the list: 1.4x tele-extender, Canon 580EX flash, *LCD protector, CF card reader, Canon EF-S 10-22mm (wide angle lens), Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan/from Canada
    Posts
    1,313
    Quote Originally Posted by forno View Post
    Why the question then??
    I had someone say this to me too and here's my answer. Sometimes its nice to hear (read) a direct answer to a direct question. There are sometimes where you can read every post and get a general feel about people's opinions and then assume an answer. Assuming an answer does not always answer the question at hand. I believe the question here was about a direct comparison between two lenses, perfectly valid IMHO. I've said it before and I will say it again. If you want to answer the question then answer the question. If you don't want to answer the question then don't.....Simple!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan/from Canada
    Posts
    1,313
    Quote Originally Posted by krzkrzkrz View Post
    Greetings!

    Whats the point of owning a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 when one already owns a Canon 18-55mm kit lens? I understand that the Tamron has a constant aperture of f/2.8 which is quite nice to have.

    HOWEVER, the zoom range is not really a big difference from both lenses. While the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 shoots some amazing photos and I decide to purchase this lens. I know that I will end up using the Tamron more than the Canon 18-55mm kit lens and end up leaving the Canon kit lens in the cabinet to gather dust.

    Is it worth spending for a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 if one already has the Canon 18-55mm kit lens? Is it worth sacrificing big bucks JUST for the constant f/2.8?

    At this point, I would rather save up on the finance and get some other lens. Just a personal opinion.

    What are your thoughts?
    Sorry but I have not used either of these lenses....I think it's just a matter of IQ. I believe the kit lens is not as sharp as would be desired. Again I'm not sure so somebody please correct me if I'm wrong!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    464
    Quote Originally Posted by zmikers View Post
    I had someone say this to me too and here's my answer. Sometimes its nice to hear (read) a direct answer to a direct question. There are sometimes where you can read every post and get a general feel about people's opinions and then assume an answer. Assuming an answer does not always answer the question at hand. I believe the question here was about a direct comparison between two lenses, perfectly valid IMHO. I've said it before and I will say it again. If you want to answer the question then answer the question. If you don't want to answer the question then don't.....Simple!
    Hear hear, my hat off to you sir

    Canon Rebel XTi 400D, 18-55mm Kit lens, 50mm f/1.8, Canon L 70-200mm/2.8 IS USM, Canon macro 100mm/2.8
    Lowepro Slingshot AW 300, minipod, CF cards, B+W polarizing filter f-pro MRC, Cokin filters

    On the list: 1.4x tele-extender, Canon 580EX flash, *LCD protector, CF card reader, Canon EF-S 10-22mm (wide angle lens), Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    2,192
    wHEN i BOUGHT THE cAMERA i FELT ATTHE TIME IT GAVE ME MORE VALUE with THE 2 KIT LENSES 18-55 & 75-300

    I went in knowing that many people had opted for the body and 1 lens of better quality, I wanted the range of focal length and at the time couldnt justify the extra dollars for the better lens.

    If you boil it down to just the constant apetrure then it is a personal preferance thing as to the amount of DOF and low light you do.

    As for that lens sitting agthering dust yes it probably will, but for the $100 odd it will nett me second hand I would rather have it handy incase I want to tackle pics in a manner that may harm the Tamron ie on a car mount or in case of a disaster with the Tamron.

    BUT it IS about so much more than the constant f/2.8 IMO and yes I would prefer the 17-55 IS but I cant stump that ATM
    Canon 350D l EF-S 10-22 l EF-S 17-55 l EF 50 f/1.8 l EF 70-200 2.8 IS l 430EX l

    Fornography

    www.vicwrx.com.au

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by krzkrzkrz View Post
    Is it worth spending for a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 if one already has the Canon 18-55mm kit lens? Is it worth sacrificing big bucks JUST for the constant f/2.8?
    Is it worth the mony for "JUST" f/2.8? Maybe, but you DON'T just get f/2.8, you get SUPERIOR IMAGE QUALITY!

    Sigma makes an 18-50 f/2.8, But nobody talks about it because the image quality doesn't come close to the Tamron or Canon's 17-55 f/2.8. People aren't praising the Tamron for its big aperture, they are praising it because its optical quality is about as good as it gets.

    Don't buy the Tamron because every recommends it, buy it because you think it will make a difference with your phography.

    If you are happy with the kit lens or think the Tamron is a waste because it covers the same focal range as the kit lens, then stop saving your money. Just pick a focal length and buy the cheapest lens you can find, you will be just as happy with it as you are with the kit lens.

    I don't mean to suggest that you run out and buy the Tamron. If I only had the kit lens, I would buy a telephoto zoom first. Then I would think about a replacement for the kit lens.

    PS: The kit lens on my 35mm gave me a lot of crappy pictures. It was almost always the photographer's fault.
    Last edited by fractalgfx; 12-19-2006 at 08:10 PM. Reason: bad grammer
    A prime is always a prime as long as its only divisors are 1 and itself.

    Gear: Rebel XTI + Opteka Battery Grip | Canon 17-55 f/2.8 + Chinese Lense Hood | Canon 10-22 3.5-4.5 | 430EX | Lowepro Slingshot 200AW | LaCrosse BC-900 Battery Charger | Digipower card reader with Mood Light
    Elan IIe + crap lenses

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •