Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 18 Jan 2011 (Tuesday) 18:19
Search threadPrev/next
POLL: "New crop lens"
Tamron 17-50 VC
9
14.5%
Canon 17-55 IS
43
69.4%
Sigma 17-50 OS
10
16.1%

62 voters, 62 votes given (1 choice only choices can be voted per member)). VOTING IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.
BROWSE ALL POLLS
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

new crop lens

 
pdrober2
Goldmember
Avatar
2,318 posts
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Durham, NC
     
Jan 18, 2011 18:19 |  #1

i am looking to replace my kit lens with a larger aperture lens. i like the focal range, and f/2.8 should be great for my needs. my question is which option to go with: Canon 17-55, Tamron 17-50 VC or the Sigma 17-50. i know i will probably get a wide range of opinions, but i am interested in hearing whether the Canon is worth the money over the Tamron and Sigma, especially from people who have shot with/compared them. thanks in advance.


Fujifilm X-T1 | 23 | 27 | 56 | 90 | 55-200
Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
hieu1004
Goldmember
Avatar
3,579 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Seattle
     
Jan 18, 2011 18:53 |  #2

I haven't used the Tamron nor Sigma personally, but the Canon 17-55mm is pretty darn amazing. Based off the user reviews off this forum, the Sigma is pretty much on par with the Canon. If you have the budget, the Canon or Sigma would be my choice.


-Hieu
Gear | Blog (external link) | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
S.Horton
worship my useful and insightful comments
Avatar
18,051 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 119
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Royersford, PA
     
Jan 18, 2011 18:56 |  #3

there's a Sigma 24-60 which has consistently impressed me over the years - I mention that because at the FL you're talking about IS has never been required.

https://photography-on-the.net …699&highlight=s​igma+24-60


Sam - TF Says Ishmael
http://midnightblue.sm​ugmug.com (external link) 
Want your title changed?Dream On! (external link)

:cool:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thomps000
Member
Avatar
115 posts
Joined Nov 2010
     
Jan 18, 2011 19:05 as a reply to  @ S.Horton's post |  #4

I've used both the Tamron and the Canon. The Canon is a better lens, but it's mainly because of IS. Picture quality they are very very close. I purchased the Tamron to save the money now since my 10-22 is most used. I like the 2.8 and didn't have any reason to justify the Canon AT THIS TIME. Will I upgrade in a little bit? Most likely, but I would rather spend $450 now instead of $1000 and see if I upgrade to FF or not first. If I stay crop, I will end up getting the Canon eventually.


-Patrick

Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
osuvette
Member
Avatar
57 posts
Joined May 2010
Location: Central Ohio
     
Jan 18, 2011 19:09 |  #5

Strictly on your poll, the Canon hands down, I went through the same situation wanted a fast, short lens. I ended up with the Tammy 17-50 non VC, mostly due to it being $400 new with the tamron rebate. I could not justify the $900 for the Canon, although it blew away the Tammy and Sigma, which I would expect for that cash.

Play with them both, rent if you need to and realize they all will keep 80% of their value should you decide in a year to move up or on.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gripped Canon 50D | Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L | Canon 24-105 f/4 IS L | Canon 300 f/4 IS | Canon 50 f/1.8 | Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 | Canon Speedlight 430EX | Crumpler 7 Million Dollar Bag

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,385 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 3372
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Jan 18, 2011 19:17 |  #6

looking at lightrules test is why i voted for the sigma...it's the one i'd choose if i had to...in the middle price wise, and it looks to be a good lens...
http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/1755isv1750o​s (external link)

i'm not sure if it's really been out long enough for people to know how good it can be...


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
npham858
Member
52 posts
Joined Nov 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
     
Jan 18, 2011 19:21 |  #7

If budget isn't a problem, the Canon for sure. The Tamron is great on a budget. I'd look into the non-VCversion, unless you absolutely need some sort of IS. Reason being is people claim that the non-VC is slightly sharper than the VC model, and is relatively cheaper (~$370) on the used market. Up to you whether or not the VC is worth the extra money.


50D | 24-105L f/4 | 50 f/1.8
Feedback #1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LightRules
Return of the Jedi
Avatar
9,911 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jun 2005
     
Jan 18, 2011 19:59 |  #8

pdrober2 wrote in post #11668519 (external link)
i am looking to replace my kit lens with a larger aperture lens. i like the focal range, and f/2.8 should be great for my needs. my question is which option to go with: Canon 17-55, Tamron 17-50 VC or the Sigma 17-50. i know i will probably get a wide range of opinions, but i am interested in hearing whether the Canon is worth the money over the Tamron and Sigma, especially from people who have shot with/compared them. thanks in advance.

All 3 excellent lenses with their own strengths and weaknesses. But note that polls like this aren't really useful since you'll mostly get people who just vote what they bought, not what is actually the best. Being on a Canon forum, asking which lens is best is like going to a MAC forum and asking if a particular PC is better :lol: You get the point. The Canon will, regardless of objectivity, have the most "votes", simply because it's Canon's best standard zoom for APS-C and you're in a Canon forum. [Not to say it's not a fine lens..it is! But it has its weaknesses too.]

Regardless, here's what I posted from another thread a few weeks back. I've used all these lenses in question and below are my thoughts. Ultimately you need to weigh the pros and cons of each and choose what your priorities are. Most of all have fun with whatever lens you end up with!

---------------

Canon 17-55 IS USM: I've used over 30 copies (and have owned 2) since its release in the summer of 2006. Its main strength over the current competition is in the area of AF (and having FTM focusing). Lightning quick AF is this lens' main perk. Optically, depending on copy to copy variation, it can be very good right from f2.8. But it isn't necessarily superior to the 3rd party options in this regard. Flare is the worst of all the standard zooms, and the build-feel and build-quality could be better. It lacks the zoom tension/dampening that I like. If you zoom lenses like the Tokina 11-16 or the 17-40L, just for example, you'll feel a nice smooth tension that makes for a higher-end "feel"; this the 17-55 completely lacks. It just zooms in and out almost like a plastic toy, and with most copies suffering from zoom creep because of it. Dust is also a real issue, though it can be remedied fairly easily (see my removal procedure here http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/drp (external link) ). The 1 year warranty is also not something very reassuring, especially since the lens has had problems with IS mechanism failure (although the latest report from LensRentals says this issue has diminished significantly). I actually recommend turning the IS "off" when you don't need it (e.g., outside/daytime) just to extend the IS unit's life as long as possible; use the IS when you need it only. If your main priority is lightning quick AF with FTM override, then the Canon needs to be your choice. I've said before that I think the 17-55 might be Canon's fastest focusing lens ever made (and I've own/used the 85 f1.8, 100 f2, 135 f2, 200 f2.8, and 300 f2.8 IS). If its speed is a 10, the Sigma OS HSM is an 8, the Tamron VC is a 6, and the Tamron non-VC is a 5. But don't pick it simply because it has the best optics because that isn't necessarily true. In reality, all these f2.8 lenses can deliver amazing IQ (just see the lens photo archive). Another nice perk of this lens is that it gives you a little more reach at 55mm vis-a-vis the others that give you 50mm. However, it's MFD is not really close at 14" resulting in a magnification of a little over 1:6. The Sigma 17-50, for example, has the shortest MFD at 11" (very nice) and a slightly higher magnification of 1:5. The Canon 17-55 is still a great APS-C lens, and you can get amazing imaging quality from it.

Sigma 17-50 OS HSM: Let me first say this is now my standard zoom of choice and is now in my bag. I recently moved away from the Canon (after owning 2 of them over the past 4 years). I posted my results in another thread recently, but after comparing it with the Canon, I found it optically better while being only slightly inferior in AF speed. Center sharpness from 17 through 50 from wide open and on is better, while edge sharpness the two lenses are very similar with negligible differences. Micro-contrast on the Sigma is the best of all of them, IMO. Now one copy of the Sigma I had was horribly decentered. Flare control is significantly better on the Sigma, CA and distortions similar, and I prefer the bokeh on the EX just slightly better. I like that the Sigma not only has a zoom lock switch, but also that you really don't need it since there is a zoom tension/dampening almost like the L or ATX Pro lenses (though not quite as nice still); the lens does not exhibit any zoom creep anyway. With 4 years warranty, that is a nice perk. And as mentioned above, the Sigma 17-50 has the shortest MFD of all the APS-C standard zooms at 11" (get up close!) and a magnification of 1:5. While it would be nice to have FTM and a non-rotating focus ring during AF, it doesn't affect me a whole lot in my shooting. And the AF speed is pretty quick still (and very quiet), and is inferior only to the Canon in the standard zoom category. One reason why I was willing to give up the AF speed of the Canon was that, in reality, I have not missed a shot with the Sigma (eg, AI Servo mode chasing kids around the park); it's simply fast enough for everything I've thrown at it. Priced anywhere from $610-$670, it's quite a deal. My own opinion is that this is currently the standard zoom to get based on optics, good AF speed, and warranty. The price is just a real nice bonus. Quick comparison http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/1755isv1750o​s (external link) .

Tamron 17-50 VC: If this lens had their new USD AF (which would include FTM), I would snatch this lens. I love the Tamron's build. I like it the most of all the standard zooms. I love the 6 years warranty, and the USD with FTM (on their new 70-300) is fantastic. Alas, it doesn't have USD and FTM, and the AF speed is slower and noisier than the Canon and Sigma. Optically, having used 3 copies in the past 2 months, it can be right there with the others. 1 copy had a decentering issue, but otherwise, the lens can deliver the goods in terms of sharpness and micro-contrast (though I think the Sigma is the best here). Flare control is better than the Canon, but not quite as good as the Sigma. The VC unit, IMO, is the best of all the makers, though the Canon and Sigma units are right behind. The VC might be able to squeek out an extra stop of handholding over the others. The Canon and Sigma are good for about 4 stops, at least for me. The Tamron I thought I had some nice keepers around 5 stops. Overall, the Tamron offers a great optic with a solid stabilization unit, but the AF is slower and noisier.

Tamron 17-50 non-VC: Easily the most popular 3rd party standard zoom since it has good optics, priced the lowest, and has been out so long. But having stabilization is always better than not having it, and the VC unit is not inferior optically, at least not in my own usage of various copies. AF speed on the non-VC is the slowest and noisiest of all these lenses, but the perk for this lens is the price and bang for buck IQ. AF can be erratic though, and it can easily hunt/oscillate, especially in low light, whereas the Canon and Sigma lenses will usually snap right into focus. My own take is that people should buy this lens if they want very good IQ at the lowest f2.8 price; otherwise, if you can up your budget, go with at least the VC model. Stabilization is very useful in a standard zoom, contrary to what some might say. There's a reason why every lens maker has come out with their stabilized models. So the non-VC offers nice IQ at the lowest price.

At day's end, all these lenses will deliver excellent and amazing IQ, especially as you put the images through your workflow and process them. Get the basics down, your exposures right in the camera, with good composition, and you won't tell the difference between any of the output of these lenses, all things being equal. Most of all, have fun! :grin:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Calicajun
Goldmember
Avatar
3,014 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 179
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Quartz Hill, CA
     
Jan 18, 2011 21:43 as a reply to  @ LightRules's post |  #9

Tried all three and the Canon is all around better IMO.


Remember, Stressed spelled backward is Desserts.:)
Suggestions welcome.
5DIII, EF 50 1.4, EF 40 f2.8, EF 24-105L IS , EF 70-200 f4L IS, 580EX ll

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
District_History_Fan
Goldmember
2,286 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2008
     
Jan 18, 2011 22:20 as a reply to  @ Calicajun's post |  #10

I owned the original version of the Tamron. It was a total dog and I sent it back to B&H. The Canon 17-55IS is truly an amazing lens and well worth the money. I wouldn't want to shoot without one on my 40/50D cameras.


www.ericmcferrin.smugm​ug.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shoturtle
Goldmember
Avatar
1,187 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: NYC/Frankfurt A.M.
     
Jan 18, 2011 22:22 |  #11

The canon is the best of the 3 without a doubt, optically better and the USM is very fast.


Traveling is my passion, so I am a major Frequent Flyer.
Canon 60D, T1i/500D, Eos 1, Eos 630, and Olympus epl-1. Current Canon Lenses ef 100 2.8, ef 85 1.8, ef 50 1.4, ef 28 1.8, ef 50 1.8,ef 28-135, ef 70-300, ef-s 18-55, ef-s 55-250, 500D close up lens. Current Olympus lenses oly m4/3 14-42, oly 4/3 35mm 3.5 macro with m4/3 adapter, panasonic 45-200, panasonic 20 1.7. And a Part time Pentax K-X shooter.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LightRules
Return of the Jedi
Avatar
9,911 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jun 2005
     
Jan 18, 2011 23:38 |  #12

Calicajun wrote in post #11669653 (external link)
Tried all three and the Canon is all around better IMO.

I guess that settles it :lol:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Calicajun
Goldmember
Avatar
3,014 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 179
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Quartz Hill, CA
     
Jan 19, 2011 02:50 |  #13

LightRules wrote in post #11670210 (external link)
I guess that settles it :lol:

Did for me or should I say my wife, who put the 17-55 2.8 on her camera and will not let me near the lens.:cry::lol:

We just did care for the consistency of the focusing on the other two lenses. They seem to hit and miss focus a lot, where the Canon is on focus under the same conditions every time.


Remember, Stressed spelled backward is Desserts.:)
Suggestions welcome.
5DIII, EF 50 1.4, EF 40 f2.8, EF 24-105L IS , EF 70-200 f4L IS, 580EX ll

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
guntoter
Goldmember
Avatar
2,409 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 76
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Knoxville, Tn
     
Jan 19, 2011 08:33 |  #14

Haven't used the 3rd party lenses. Nothing against 3rd party, I have a Sigma prime and love it.
Just know I was blown away by the 17-55 canon. It is now my favorite lens.

LightRules: you had a very interesting analysis of the 4 different lenses.


Joel
GEAR
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pdrober2
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,318 posts
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Durham, NC
     
Jan 19, 2011 09:00 |  #15

LightRules wrote in post #11669057 (external link)
All 3 excellent lenses with their own strengths and weaknesses. But note that polls like this aren't really useful since you'll mostly get people who just vote what they bought, not what is actually the best. Being on a Canon forum, asking which lens is best is like going to a MAC forum and asking if a particular PC is better :lol: You get the point. The Canon will, regardless of objectivity, have the most "votes", simply because it's Canon's best standard zoom for APS-C and you're in a Canon forum. [Not to say it's not a fine lens..it is! But it has its weaknesses too.]

Regardless, here's what I posted from another thread a few weeks back. I've used all these lenses in question and below are my thoughts. Ultimately you need to weigh the pros and cons of each and choose what your priorities are. Most of all have fun with whatever lens you end up with!

---------------

Canon 17-55 IS USM: I've used over 30 copies (and have owned 2) since its release in the summer of 2006. Its main strength over the current competition is in the area of AF (and having FTM focusing). Lightning quick AF is this lens' main perk. Optically, depending on copy to copy variation, it can be very good right from f2.8. But it isn't necessarily superior to the 3rd party options in this regard. Flare is the worst of all the standard zooms, and the build-feel and build-quality could be better. It lacks the zoom tension/dampening that I like. If you zoom lenses like the Tokina 11-16 or the 17-40L, just for example, you'll feel a nice smooth tension that makes for a higher-end "feel"; this the 17-55 completely lacks. It just zooms in and out almost like a plastic toy, and with most copies suffering from zoom creep because of it. Dust is also a real issue, though it can be remedied fairly easily (see my removal procedure here http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/drp (external link) ). The 1 year warranty is also not something very reassuring, especially since the lens has had problems with IS mechanism failure (although the latest report from LensRentals says this issue has diminished significantly). I actually recommend turning the IS "off" when you don't need it (e.g., outside/daytime) just to extend the IS unit's life as long as possible; use the IS when you need it only. If your main priority is lightning quick AF with FTM override, then the Canon needs to be your choice. I've said before that I think the 17-55 might be Canon's fastest focusing lens ever made (and I've own/used the 85 f1.8, 100 f2, 135 f2, 200 f2.8, and 300 f2.8 IS). If its speed is a 10, the Sigma OS HSM is an 8, the Tamron VC is a 6, and the Tamron non-VC is a 5. But don't pick it simply because it has the best optics because that isn't necessarily true. In reality, all these f2.8 lenses can deliver amazing IQ (just see the lens photo archive). Another nice perk of this lens is that it gives you a little more reach at 55mm vis-a-vis the others that give you 50mm. However, it's MFD is not really close at 14" resulting in a magnification of a little over 1:6. The Sigma 17-50, for example, has the shortest MFD at 11" (very nice) and a slightly higher magnification of 1:5. The Canon 17-55 is still a great APS-C lens, and you can get amazing imaging quality from it.

Sigma 17-50 OS HSM: Let me first say this is now my standard zoom of choice and is now in my bag. I recently moved away from the Canon (after owning 2 of them over the past 4 years). I posted my results in another thread recently, but after comparing it with the Canon, I found it optically better while being only slightly inferior in AF speed. Center sharpness from 17 through 50 from wide open and on is better, while edge sharpness the two lenses are very similar with negligible differences. Micro-contrast on the Sigma is the best of all of them, IMO. Now one copy of the Sigma I had was horribly decentered. Flare control is significantly better on the Sigma, CA and distortions similar, and I prefer the bokeh on the EX just slightly better. I like that the Sigma not only has a zoom lock switch, but also that you really don't need it since there is a zoom tension/dampening almost like the L or ATX Pro lenses (though not quite as nice still); the lens does not exhibit any zoom creep anyway. With 4 years warranty, that is a nice perk. And as mentioned above, the Sigma 17-50 has the shortest MFD of all the APS-C standard zooms at 11" (get up close!) and a magnification of 1:5. While it would be nice to have FTM and a non-rotating focus ring during AF, it doesn't affect me a whole lot in my shooting. And the AF speed is pretty quick still (and very quiet), and is inferior only to the Canon in the standard zoom category. One reason why I was willing to give up the AF speed of the Canon was that, in reality, I have not missed a shot with the Sigma (eg, AI Servo mode chasing kids around the park); it's simply fast enough for everything I've thrown at it. Priced anywhere from $610-$670, it's quite a deal. My own opinion is that this is currently the standard zoom to get based on optics, good AF speed, and warranty. The price is just a real nice bonus. Quick comparison http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/1755isv1750o​s (external link) .

Tamron 17-50 VC: If this lens had their new USD AF (which would include FTM), I would snatch this lens. I love the Tamron's build. I like it the most of all the standard zooms. I love the 6 years warranty, and the USD with FTM (on their new 70-300) is fantastic. Alas, it doesn't have USD and FTM, and the AF speed is slower and noisier than the Canon and Sigma. Optically, having used 3 copies in the past 2 months, it can be right there with the others. 1 copy had a decentering issue, but otherwise, the lens can deliver the goods in terms of sharpness and micro-contrast (though I think the Sigma is the best here). Flare control is better than the Canon, but not quite as good as the Sigma. The VC unit, IMO, is the best of all the makers, though the Canon and Sigma units are right behind. The VC might be able to squeek out an extra stop of handholding over the others. The Canon and Sigma are good for about 4 stops, at least for me. The Tamron I thought I had some nice keepers around 5 stops. Overall, the Tamron offers a great optic with a solid stabilization unit, but the AF is slower and noisier.

Tamron 17-50 non-VC: Easily the most popular 3rd party standard zoom since it has good optics, priced the lowest, and has been out so long. But having stabilization is always better than not having it, and the VC unit is not inferior optically, at least not in my own usage of various copies. AF speed on the non-VC is the slowest and noisiest of all these lenses, but the perk for this lens is the price and bang for buck IQ. AF can be erratic though, and it can easily hunt/oscillate, especially in low light, whereas the Canon and Sigma lenses will usually snap right into focus. My own take is that people should buy this lens if they want very good IQ at the lowest f2.8 price; otherwise, if you can up your budget, go with at least the VC model. Stabilization is very useful in a standard zoom, contrary to what some might say. There's a reason why every lens maker has come out with their stabilized models. So the non-VC offers nice IQ at the lowest price.

At day's end, all these lenses will deliver excellent and amazing IQ, especially as you put the images through your workflow and process them. Get the basics down, your exposures right in the camera, with good composition, and you won't tell the difference between any of the output of these lenses, all things being equal. Most of all, have fun! :grin:

didnt find this in my search. exactly what i was looking for. thanks!!


Fujifilm X-T1 | 23 | 27 | 56 | 90 | 55-200
Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,488 views & 0 likes for this thread
new crop lens
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Windowsillsitting
995 guests, 222 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.