Canon EF-S 17-85mm F 4-5.6 IS vs Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or 17-40L ?

[Bas]

Hey lads,

My dad is in the market for a new lens for his 350D.
First he was going to buy a Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 Di II.

Then he noticed a 17-40L being for sale (2nd hand), for just 200 euro more then the Tamron costs new....

But just a second he came into my room, telling me there was a 17-85 F/4-5.6 for sale (special price), 588 euro's... and he told me the IS makes up for 2 stops or something .

But... If i'm correct, that isn't as 'fast' as the Tamron lense ?

Any hints on what he should be getting?

[wimg]

Hi Bas,

Actually, the 17-85 can be had for about 515 euros if you look around a little, in the NL anyway, and there is a cashback offer from Canon as well, and quite something for the 17-85, too : 150 euros (valid till June, 30). That'll bring the price down to 365 euros, which then becomes almost a nobrainer, IMO.

Yes, both the 17-50 Tamron and Canon 17-40 are better, IQ-wise, and yes, the IS will give you 2-3 stops, but only of handholdability, i.e., works like a built-in tripod. It won't give you back aperture size, so if you need a larger aperture, you still need a faster lens.

Kind regards, Wim

[hotmouse]

Canon EOS 30D
Canon EF-S 17-85mm F 4-5.6 IS
Shooting Date/Time
7/31/2006 16:24:12
Tv(Shutter Speed)
1/60Sec.
Av(Aperture Value)
F5.6
ISO Speed
100
Focal Length
64.0 mm

[timbop]

You are right - 50mm,f/5.6 at a shutter speed of 1/15 is the same exposure as 50mm, f/2.8 and 1/60th. The IS lens is 2 stops slower, but it compensates for camera shake at 2 to 3 stops. However, shooting a moving subject at 1/15 will give you plenty of smudge, whereas at 1/60 ordinary subjects will not have blurring.

There have been tons of debates on the relative merits of the tammy, 17-40L, and 17-85. IMHO the f/2.8 aperture gives you far more flexibility than the IS, and the 17-40 is designated as an "L" for the build and weathersealing. Again IMHO the image quality fo the 17-50 is as good or better than the 17-40. I would suggest the tammy 17-50 and an 85/1.8 for roughly the same money as a new 17-40: he will have far more flexibilty AND excellent image quality. That is, his ability to blur backgrounds and freeze motion in poor light will be far better with the wider aperture lenses.

[Tee Why]

The 17-85 would be very versatile and if you are looking for a one lens solution it may be the best option. If you are looking for a few more lenses to have, a 17-50f2.8 maybe better as you can get a longer lens. The Canon 17-40L is much nicer to use than the Tamron, but I find it too short in range and too slow for my tastes.

If you are looking for a one lens that does most, I think Sigma 17-70 makes for a more economical, bang for the bucks, lens.
Good luck

[Bas]

I've done some calculating. The cheapest 17-85 I could find, is 525euro's. That's without the 150 Euro Cash-back!

Soo.... it's 375 euro for the Canon 17-85, and about the same amount for a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. The 17-40L is about 750 euro's new

Hmm,

Now there is a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX For sale here as well ! (2nd hand..). Costs 275 euro ... any idea's on that one?

[DerekI]

hi, first read the review below.

http://www.cameralabs.com/features/C...de/page4.shtml

The 17-85Is is very very sharp lens.

Please do not beleive many 17-85 bashers trying to make you belive this is as ****ty as the kit or Sigma 17-70 is better , no way.

Actually, it's got more resolution than most of other in this class except the 17-55IS.

the Tmaorn is a good lens considering the fact that costs only 300 , but it is not a versatile lens like the 17-85.

Many people pixel-peeping too much , but in real life , nobody see pictures that way , the pure resolution or a bit of extra resolution of Tamron over the EF-S(I personally think the Canon has better resolution) is not enough to justify me to put the 17-85IS on ebay or Yahoo, seriously ,too many rave for the Tammy and hate the Canon ,but if you use both , you will like the Canon more for its versatility and color accuracy.

The Tamron maybe once in 100 times , out perform the Canon , but on average , the Canon scores higher in term of IQ or corner sharpness because of the IS.

Especially when they are tested in low light , the Canon show its IS power.


Also, the Canon was designed to fit perfectly on a 1.6 crop body while Tamron was designed to fit on a 1.5 crop body since Tamron has had very close relashionship with Sony group and Nikon(their zoom goes the same direction as Nikon and Sony,that tell you something).


That said , I like both and there are some scenes that the Tmaron performs better than the Canon..........

Ultimately though, I think if you do not mind spending alot of money at first , you should check the 10-22 and 17-55IS both are incredibly good .

I bashed the 17-55 some time a go, but as I experienced with it more , I changed the way I think of it .

Maybe ,paying more at initiation period is actually saving money in future.

conclusion :

1 if you have a lot of money to spend , get the Ef-S17-55IS.

2 if you wanna save money get the 17-85IS or value the extra range.

3 if you have a plan to go up to a FF soon , go with the 17-40L.

4 if you can spend only 300US , then go with the Tammy, it is an ok lens but nothing great or special, I did love it but only for 2 weeks.


For me the best combination of lenses might be:
1 17-85IS(I need the range on my walk around).
2 10-22 or 17-40L
3 60mm macro.
4 70-300IS or 70-200 f4 L IS.
5 35 f2.
And get rid of the Tmaron 17-50 and Sigma 17-70.


Take care.

[DerekI]

Originally Posted by Bas

I've done some calculating. The cheapest 17-85 I could find, is 525euro's. That's without the 150 Euro Cash-back!

Soo.... it's 375 euro for the Canon 17-85, and about the same amount for a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. The 17-40L is about 750 euro's new

Hmm,

Now there is a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX For sale here as well ! (2nd hand..). Costs 275 euro ... any idea's on that one?

Well , if it the case , get the 17-85IS , the price is bargain.

do not get the Sigma 18-50 non-macro.

Trust me on this,the lens is CA and flare creator , the flare some time very artistic , though.

The new 18-50 EX macro is a great lens , but the non-macro is a horribly bad lens, any way , get the Canon 17-85Is or the 17-55IS.

If the Tmaron cost as much as the 17-85IS, well , that's rip off.

the original price of the Tamron in Asia is 300US and if it costs more than that , that means they are ripping off in EU.

You should never pay more than 320 EU for the Tammy.

think the EU is stronger money then the USD so the EU price should be cheaper , other wise , it is a con business.

wow , I wont buy any Tamorn , they do such a B-S business ,huh .

[DerekI]

Originally Posted by Tee Why

The 17-85 would be very versatile and if you are looking for a one lens solution it may be the best option. If you are looking for a few more lenses to have, a 17-50f2.8 maybe better as you can get a longer lens. The Canon 17-40L is much nicer to use than the Tamron, but I find it too short in range and too slow for my tastes.

If you are looking for a one lens that does most, I think Sigma 17-70 makes for a more economical, bang for the bucks, lens.
Good luck

As walk around lens of 5 xzoom range , the Sigma lacks both the constant f2.8 of the Tamron and the IS of the 17-85 , this makes the lens much less practical in real use .

The lens is useless in low light. So you need to swap it so often , and have to carry many primes with it.

It is cheap, but in EU , as he(OP) said , is not much cheaper than the Canon , so better get the Canon.

Any way, I think spending more money at initiation time is actually saving alot of money and time , cause you wont have to deal with FF(front focus)issue or future-compatibility issue , or possible returning them to Sigma.

So maybe the best possible solution is go with the L or the greatest digital only lens ever made (17-55IS).

Good luck .

[bufferbure1]

I don't think u can go wrong with any of your 3 choices. If you need reach, fast AF and IS, 17-85. If you need f2.8 and better sharpness, go for Tammy. If you have money to spend and don't need the reach, go for the L.