Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Amherst, MA
    Posts
    3,249

    Tamron 17-50 vs 17-55 IS comparison/testing

    Don Schap is going to love this one!!!

    I hope this hasn't already been posted here.

    Intersesting comparison at The Digital Picture....Click on the link below. The images shown are from the 17-55; if you roll over the image it becomes the Tamron 17-50 image. Overall, the Tamron looks to edge out the 17-55 here.

    http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...96&FLI=0&API=0
    Last edited by michaelb; 03-21-2007 at 10:13 AM.
    Michael B.
    Canon 5D2, 550D, Sony NEX 5N, Sigma 15mm fish, 24L mkI, 35L, 40mm f/2.8, 50 1.8 II, Sigma 50 1.4, Sigma 50mm f/2.8 macro, 60mm macro, 100mm f/2, 70-200 f/4, 200 f/2.8 mk I, Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, 430EX. Growing list of MF lenses!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan/from Canada
    Posts
    1,313
    That is very interesting and an interesting website as well, thanks for sharing!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,545

    Thumbs up You made my day!

    It's this kind of thing that makes it all worthwhile.

    Thanks, Mike!
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    81
    Actually, looks like the initial image is of the Canon and when you roll the mouse over, it's the Tamron image. Either way, nice comparison. I was planning on getting the Tamron and this is even further proof I am getting a very decent lens. Thanks for the link.
    Carlos // Canon 40D/ XTi

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,565
    Try the sigma 18-50 comparison with the 17-55!! it gets similar results! maybe they had a bad copy of the 17-55mm !?
    5D MK III, 50D, ELAN 7E, 17-40mm 4, Sigma 10mm 2.8 fisheye, 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 IS, 30mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 580 EX, 430 EX speedlight, Pocket wizard flex and mini.
    Canon G10

    Pentax P30, 50mm 2.0

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,163
    I wonder how the Tamron's IS compares to that of the Canon.
    Ouch.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,590
    Don't put too much importance in that website, they always seem to come up with very weird results.

    But I'd trust any other source of information before I would put any relevance to the-digital-picture.com.

    http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...5_28/index.htm
    The Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS is not a perfect lens but it lives quite well up to the very high expectations of the user base. The resolution figures are among the very best seen so far for an APS-C standard zoom lens. The center resolution is nothing short of outstanding and the even borders can keep a very good to even excellent quality level. The distortion characteristic is quite typical for a zoom lens in this range (pronounced barrel distortions @ 17mm, moderate pincushion distortions @ 55mm) whereas CAs are unusually moderate. Unfortunately vignetting is a weak spot of the lens peaking around 1EV at f/2.8 throughout the range. It's not a show stopper but a little annoying nonetheless. The build quality of the lens is pretty good but in relation to the price tag of the lens Canon should have used a little less plastic - finally even the much cheaper EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L features a magnesium-alloy shell. Probably a marketing decision to keep professionals away from APS-C DSLRs. All-in-all the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS is clearly a level up from the other Canon standard zooms - a highly desirable lens though the pricing may rise a few question marks.
    This does not match what that website shows.

    User experiences with the Canon 17-55 IS:
    http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=2

    User experiences with the Tamron 17-50:
    http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=43&page=1
    Last edited by coldrain; 03-21-2007 at 07:03 AM.
    Canon EOS 350D, Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 macro, Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC EX, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM, Tokina AT-X124 Pro 12-24mm F4, Soligor 1.7x C/D4 DG Teleconvertor, Manfrotto 724B tripod, Canon Powershot S30

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,163
    Quote Originally Posted by coldrain View Post
    It is the most unreliable website you can find for lens evaluation. They come up with the weirdest results, do not ask me why, since I do not know.

    But I'd trust any other source of information before I would put any relevance to the-digital-picture.com.
    So you know it's unreliable, yet you cannot come up with a reason why? How Coldrain of you.
    Ouch.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Grafton, MA
    Posts
    1,714
    Cool comparison, but that only tells a small part of the story - the optical part. I have a Super Takumar 50 f1.8 that I bought for $30 that produces images that are as sharp/contrasty/creamy bokeh as my $1000 Canon 35 f1.4...but guess which one I take to weddings!

    (In case I made it hard to guess, let me give you a clue - the one with fast, ACCURATE, USM autofocus).

    Almost all of the Tamron and Sigma lenses I have owned have been excellent optically, but they fell short when it came to the AF Speed/Accuracy compared to OEM lenses.
    Last edited by jamison55; 03-21-2007 at 07:15 AM.
    www.jamisonwexler.com

    Canon 5dII|Canon 5D|Canon 40D|Sigma 15 f2.8|Canon 35 f1.4|Canon 50 f2.5|Canon 50 f1.8|Canon 85 f1.2|Canon 17-40 f4|Canon 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS|Canon 24-105 f4 IS|Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5|Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS|Canon 75-300 f4-5.6 IS|Kenko 1.4x TC|Canon 580ex X3|Canon 380exII |Canon 420ex|Sunpak 383 x4|Sunpak 120j x2|Sunpak 622|Elinchrom Skyports

    Past Gear

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,163
    Quote Originally Posted by jamison55 View Post
    Cool comparison, but that only tells a small part of the story - the optical part. I have a Super Takumar 50 f1.8 that I bought for $30 that produces images that are as sharp/contrasty/creamy bokeh as my $1000 Canon 35 f1.4...but guess which one I take to weddings!

    (In case I made it hard to guess, let me give you a clue - the one with fast, ACCURATE, USM autofocus).

    Almost all of the Tamron and Sigma lenses I have owned have been excellent optically, but they ell short when it came to the AF Speed/Accuracy compared to OEM lenses.
    Good point. Bet yer butt I won't be using my 15 bladed Meyer at any weddings, despite the perfect bokeh. And forget sports too!

    It's not just a 3rd party thing either. If something OEM doesn't do what I need it to do, it will be promptly sold off or won't be purchased in the first place.
    Last edited by cdifoto; 03-21-2007 at 07:15 AM.
    Ouch.

Posting Permissions

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