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

[michaelb]

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

[zmikers]

That is very interesting and an interesting website as well, thanks for sharing!

[DonSchap]

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

Thanks, Mike!

[99allturbo]

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.

[Nickcanada]

Try the sigma 18-50 comparison with the 17-55!! it gets similar results! maybe they had a bad copy of the 17-55mm !?

[cdifoto]

I wonder how the Tamron's IS compares to that of the Canon.

[coldrain]

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

[cdifoto]

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.

[jamison55]

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.

[cdifoto]

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.