Kit Lens Upgrade - Canon v Tamron - Help

T

thelamont

Suspended / Banned
Messages
101
Edit My Images
Yes
Help ...

Wanting to upgrade from my Canon 18-55mm kit lens on my 450D, it's just a wee bit too soft for my liking.

Now here is the dilema -

This was my 1st choice lens,

1) Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS

But after some severe head scratching have came up with another option for the same price. Two lenses to be precise.

2) Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f2.8 VC XR Di II LD (IF)
3) Tamron SP AF 60mm F2 Di II LD (IF) 1:1 Macro

Have read a lot of good reports on the Tamron 17-50mm (non VC), is their still a problem with the VC version or has it been sorted yet !!!
Have also noted from several sources that the 60mm macro also makes a cracking portrait lens on a cropped body.

Is this a good option, or will i reget not going for the Canon 17-55mm in the long run.

All help and suggestions would be much appreciated ... cheers.

 
I'd try and source out a non-VC version of the 17-50mm. I love mine although i am thinking of upgrading sometime soon to the Canon 17-55.
 
I have two tamrons a 50mm f1.4 and a 24-60mm f2.8 neither focus spot on when fitted to our training 450d which has no microfocus adustment. They both give stunning results on the 50d once micro focus has been set.

That said, others will have a different experience and Sigma will reset the focus of a new lens to suit your 450d. You send off lens and camera for about 10 days , no charge.
 
The Canon 17-55 for sure.. While the Tamron lenses are great value for money (I used to own the non-VC 17-50 and 28-70), they can't touch the 17-55 IS.

Get a nifty fifty to go with it for your big aperture stuff and you're set.
 
"I have two tamrons a 50mm f1.4 and a 24-60mm f2.8"

I could be wrong but I don't think that Tamron make either of those lenses, I think you mean Sigma and if you do I have the 50mm f1.4 and I have no complaints.

Back to the OP, I don't think you'll see any real difference between the standard f2.8 zooms unless you're pixel peeping and a 60mm macro will come in useful so I'd take the two Tamron lens option.
 
Last edited:
What about the sigma 17-50 f/2.8mm ? its alot more solid/sharper than the tamron version. Its also alot cheaper than the canon model.
 
I'm having the same dilemma. I'm considering the 17-40 f4L and a cheap prime for low light stuff.

The Tamron is so cheap it could be the cheap lens!

I've set my kit lens to 50mm and tried it but it is too long for what I'd want so if I went for a prime it would need to be 30mm or so.

the Canon 17-50 f2.8 is just too much dosh for me at the moment but I'm tempted.
 
HybridUK said:
I'd try and source out a non-VC version of the 17-50mm. I love mine although i am thinking of upgrading sometime soon to the Canon 17-55.
Click to expand...

Is there still a problem with the VC version, and if so is it a reliability problem or does the VC just not work too good ... would like to know ...
 
vaizki said:
The Canon 17-55 for sure.. While the Tamron lenses are great value for money (I used to own the non-VC 17-50 and 28-70), they can't touch the 17-55 IS.

Get a nifty fifty to go with it for your big aperture stuff and you're set.
Click to expand...

Jukka ... I've got a nifty fifty ... cracking wee lens for the money.

Tend to agree about the Canon but at 2x the price is it 2x as good ... ? :shrug:

 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
"I have two tamrons a 50mm f1.4 and a 24-60mm f2.8"

I could be wrong but I don't think that Tamron make either of those lenses, I think you mean Sigma and if you do I have the 50mm f1.4 and I have no complaints.

Back to the OP, I don't think you'll see any real difference between the standard f2.8 zooms unless you're pixel peeping and a 60mm macro will come in useful so I'd take the two Tamron lens option.
Click to expand...

Cheers, my thoughts exactly ...

 
Photoplus test all these lenses this month..

The 17-55 wins, the 15-85 comes second the rest follow behind....

Check it out, good reading...
 
I think I've been working too hard this week!!!
I was indeed talking about Sigmas which are great on our 5d even at full aperture.
I'm off for a timely holiday next week so hopefully some sense will return to my posts!!
 
thelamont said:
Jukka ... I've got a nifty fifty ... cracking wee lens for the money.

Tend to agree about the Canon but at 2x the price is it 2x as good ... ? :shrug:
Click to expand...

No, as usual the law of diminishing returns kicks in... But let's just say that I get maybe 20% more keepers than with the tamron I had.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top