Whats the better deal: Canon EF-S 17-85mm lens for $500, or Tamron 28-75 xf for $304

[johnathanesper]

Whats the better deal: Canon EF-S 17-85mm lens for $500 + $15 S&H, or Tamron 28-75 F2.8 XR AF (http://shopping.com/xPO-Tamron_TAMRON_28_75_F2_8_XR_AF_LENS_FOR~CLT-HSNLF) for $304, after rebate?
Thanks!
Johnathan Esper
www.wildernessphotographs.com (http://www.wildernessphotographs.com/)

[MrChad]

I'd take the Tamrons f2.8 speed anyday. $500 for an f4-5.6 lens seams too much even with IS.

[Malaxos1]

The Tamron is an incredible lens, I bet you will get a lot of feedback directing you to get this lens. I went to a Will Crockett photography seminar here in Portland. This guy told people not use cheap lenses. He uses a Fuji S3 Pro and Nikon VR lenses. When it came to his favorite portrait lens he said that we were going to think he's nuts. He told everyone to just buy it and give it try and if they didn't like it they can return it. He said the Tamron is by far the best lens in this focal length and price. I had the lens since it came out and it is my favorite one by far...Dean

[Andy_T]

What Dean said.

Best regards,
Andy

PS: You have some very nice photographs on your site!
I'm curious to see what you will do with the 20D.
But maybe you'll nee a wide angle lens, as well.

[johnathanesper]

OK, then, I am going to buy the Tamron lens. It's cheaper for one thing, and I have read excellent reviews on it, in addition to all of your constructive comments. Is $304 after rebate (plus shipping) a good price for this lense?
Johnathan Esper

[tim]

I won't buy EF-S lenses, just in case they don't work on the as-yet-unreleased "reasonably priced full frame Canon camera".

I like the Tamron, but IS would be nice at times, as would a longer reach. 18-135IS is another option.

[johnathanesper]

PS: You have some very nice photographs on your site!
I'm curious to see what you will do with the 20D.
But maybe you'll nee a wide angle lens, as well.
All the pictures on my website were taken with Olympus Cameida 3.2 and 4.0 mp point and shoots! I think the 20d will be a great step for me! I also have read the Tamron lense is rugged enough and small enough to be practical to take on backpacking trips, etc. Is this true?
Johnathanesper

[MrChad]

OK, then, I am going to buy the Tamron lens. It's cheaper for one thing, and I have read excellent reviews on it, in addition to all of your constructive comments. Is $304 after rebate (plus shipping) a good price for this lense?
Johnathan Esper

I've always had good luck with BHphoto, I've even had good telephone support from them, gasp...does that happen in this era?

[Persian-Rice]

Tamron is a pretty good lens, not great, has lots of weak points, but it also has quite a few good ones as well. It's not awsome by any means, but gets the job done optically. I use it more then the nifty fifty, but I don't like it as much. I wont even compare it with the L's.

Pros:
- Price
- Size and weight
- Not prone to flare or chroma......
- Semi-Macro ability.
- Very sharp when f/4 and smaller.
- I love the lens cap and hood(would be better with the felt)
- Fast(aperture)

Cons:
- Really slow AF
- Hunts alot.
- Build.
- Low contrast.
- Soft wide open.
- For me at least, lots of manufactuerer defects(2 bad lenses).

I have no comments about the Canon, never used one or even seen one.

[Andy_T]

I also have read the Tamron lense is rugged enough and small enough to be practical to take on backpacking trips, etc. Is this true?


The Tamron is the smallest and lightest constant aperture 2.8 normal zoom.
Build quality is similar to Canon's normal lenses (e.g. 28-105) IMHO. I use a Tamrac Velocity 7 sling bag that lets me fit the 20D with the Tamron (with the lens hood mounted, cause I'm lazy), the 18-55 kit lens and the battery charger. Nothing more, but that normally does it for me.

Best regards,
Andy

[RJSorensen]

I bought the 17-85 as my kit lens and have no complaints regarding same.

[Huckaback Photo]

No Contest.
I dont personally use it But get the Tamron,
good quallity and much better price,

[12345Michael54321]

Assuming you're using it on a camera with a 1.6x pseudo-crop factor relative to 35mm format (which would seem to be the case, given that both of the cameras capable of using EF-S lenses have a 1.6x factor), the 17-85mm lens is the 35mm equivalent of a 27-136mm lens. That's moderate wide angle to medium tele.

The Tamron is the equivalent of a 45-120mm lens. That's roughly normal to medium tele.

If you want wide angle coverage, the Canon lens has it, and the Tamron doesn't. If you want speed, the Tamron's got it and the Canon doesn't. If you are cash strapped, the Tamron's the clear winner. If you have a distaste for third party equipment, the Canon's the obvious choice.

Basically, as is the case in most "which is better?" situations, the answer is "It depends on what your needs are, and how much value you place on meeting them."

Me, I probably won't buy either lens. But that's just me. The Canon or the Tamron may meet the next guy's needs perfectly.

[Malaxos1]

Just want to add after reading some other posts here. I have had a problem with searching or roaming a little with the Tamron on my D60 but not at all on my 20D. Also, the images were a little softer on the D60 that on the 20D. I have a few very expensive lenses "L" glass, and this is my favorite. I bought it after being extremely dissapointed with the Canon 18-55s. I have since bought a Tamron 19-35mm and I have learned that not all Tamrons are winners, this one is the "diamond in the rough" as Will Crocket has said. I use mine for weddings, landscapes and portraits, what else is there?...Dean

[Tom W]

One thing to consider - when you buy the Tamron 28-75, you'll probably end up buying a wider lens in the near future as well. 28 mm is just not very wide on the 1.6 cameras. In fact, its roughly a "normal" lens.

EDIT: ANd if I'd have read Michael's post, I'd have seen that this information was already mentioned. :)

[Olegis]

OK, then, I am going to buy the Tamron lens.

If so, be prepared to the possibility to return the first (and maybe the second copy) to the store. I replaced my first for being soft wide-open, and the second copy I got was (and still is) excellent. You can see a sample picture (75mm, f/2.8, ISO800 with flash) here (http://www.pbase.com/olegis/image/36114206) (full resolution non-edited JPEG file, straight from my 10D). Persian-Rice here also had a few problems with his first copy (or copies). It means that you will have to purchase this lens in a local store which has a goos return and replace policy.

Good luck ! ;)

[Persian-Rice]

Yep, first copy had a "broken" DOF. It would be really shallow on left side and deep on the right. Second copy was EXTREMELY soft at 75mm(all apertures), it was the same at 28 when wide-open.
Third copy is slightly soft wide-open, but I am ok with that level because I can sharpen it out.It's tack sharp at all other apertures.

I know some people argue this is not as common as I make it out to be, but looking at all the reviews and reading 2-3 boards, you realise 1 of 4-5 people have some issue with Tamron lenses. I am including people who have kept their copy but it was not absolutely sharp, like some copies.

This is by far the worst rep I have seen for defects. So it's a head up I like to give.