Canon 17-55 is, was this a bad copy?

gibbon

gibbon

Suspended / Banned
Messages
346
Name
Andy Gilbert
Edit My Images
Yes
I feel ive just made a bit of a mistake, or was the reviewers copy a bad one. Ive just sold my tamron 17-50 NON vc as ive had it a while and felt i wanted to upgrade somewhat. I purchased that based on the reviews and know its sharp but from my experience it is definitely not to good on the corners/edges at 2.8.

So i started out wanting a 24-70 but A) i dont think my budget is going to let me and B) it leaves me in a pickle as im using it on a cropped sensor (60D) and i feel i will miss being able to go down to 17mm.

So i stumbled across the the canon 17-55 2.8 IS, bonus as it is IS, has 5mm more throw and gets very good reviews. Infact ive seen quite a few comments stating its worthy of an L status (optically). So I check on prices all look good then boom i stumble on this:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...LensComp=400&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Thats my (well somone elses now) tamron, and the canon that everyone says excellent and to me, at most lengths, the tamron seems much sharper?

Just wondered what anyone else thought? I know the canon might be built better, its quieter and quicker focusing, but really its IQ im after.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
I'm getting confused, in the link you posted above the author is talking about his purchase of a 15-85 not a 17-55.

Looking at the comparisons chart, I am very surprised. I have owned a 17-55 for a few years and love it, its sharp and I would certainly suggest that optically its up to the quality of the 'L' series of lenses. Not having owned or used the Tamron lens you mentioned, I cant offer any thoughts or comparisons, but the results shown do surprise me quite a lot, I really wouldn't have expected that and would suspect the results, or at least, the Canon lens that was tested.
 
Hi, your right, but link i posted shows a post where someone also suggests a 17-55 and refers to it being the quality of L glass.

Yes its quite clear that in the comparisons, the tamron comes across significantly sharpr, even in the corners at all ranges, i dont quite get it.

Andy
 
gibbon said:
Hi, your right, but link i posted shows a post where someone also suggests a 17-55 and refers to it being the quality of L glass.

Yes its quite clear that in the comparisons, the tamron comes across significantly sharpr, even in the corners at all ranges, i dont quite get it.

Andy
Click to expand...
Looking at the results its a no brainer and the Tammy is by far superior, all I can offer is that the results shown do not tally with the my experiences of the Canon lens by a long way. I hope someone else who has experience of both lenses can help you more.
 
Last edited:
I had the Tamron 17-50 non vc for a few years and I've still got the Canon 17-55 IS USM. It took me a while to realise which is better for me but it's definitely the Canon. It focuses faster, more decisively and the images are sharper. The Tamron is a great lens for the price and it's also much lighter & more compact than the Canon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top