17-50mm Tamron, 15-85mm Canon, or 24-105mm f4/L???

Intheswamp wrote in post #16471527
Now I'm wondering if I should revisit the STM version of this lens as people say it is much better...

It's probably worth the reconsideration.

Well, I guess I could sell my 18-135 if I got a STM...the focal length range is good and the price is much better. Is the difference in image quality between the STM and non-STM 18-135 lenses something that the casual viewer could detect between two side-by-side photos?

The lure of the faster 17-55 lens and it's purported "L" image quality still is attractive to me, though. I just looked on the Canon website and from what I can tell the 17-55 refurb that was listed as back-ordered has now vanished from the list completely.

Ed

Intheswamp wrote in post #16472445
Well, I guess I could sell my 18-135 if I got a STM...the focal length range is good and the price is much better. Is the difference in image quality between the STM and non-STM 18-135 lenses something that the casual viewer could detect between two side-by-side photos?

The lure of the faster 17-55 lens and it's purported "L" image quality still is attractive to me, though. I just looked on the Canon website and from what I can tell the 17-55 refurb that was listed as back-ordered has now vanished from the list completely.

Ed

In my use, it was night and day difference. Yes the STM version is that good. But, according to TDP, they look closer. Of course, according to TDP, the 18-135 STM, at some settings, looks as good or better than the 17-55 f/2.8. Go figure.

Eastport, for what use were you mostly using the 18-135 STM?

Intheswamp wrote in post #16472935
Eastport, for what use were you mostly using the 18-135 STM?

It's a walkaround lens. Landscapes, group shots, candids. Certainly not low light or real serious work. I actually do use the onboard flash also.

Probably won't use it for sports, wildlife, theater etc. I have a 5DIII and L lenses.

kin2son wrote in post #16447382
Slow aperture. Nothing more, nothing less.

That's more than enough reason to hate it, and that cons outweights all the pros for me.

If I am going to buy a slow variable aperture zoom, I might as well use a 18-135.

you knew all this going in... enuff said????

linh811 wrote in post #16473423
you knew all this going in... enuff said????

I agree... its got to be 2.8 or I would never be happy with it. I had 2.8 and faster before I got out of this hobby, and as I started coming back I was trying with a 4-5.6 lens and was never happy.

Lovin my 17-55 2.8 IS now and its not the lens im lovin, its the results

My mentality has drifted along these lines...

I've acquired a couple of lenses since I started this thread. I already had a 50mm/f1.8, 100mm macro (non-L), and an 18-135 IS zoom. I bought a nice copy of the STM version of the zoom the other day and will be selling the IS version. I got a good deal on the STM lens so the upgrade and when I sell the IS it will be a very low-cost upgrade.

After thinking about it a while I decided that the zoom and 100mm should cover me pretty well towards the long end of where I tend to shoot (relative to my present range of shooting....I know it's not "long" like a 200mm or 300mm ). Thus, my focus shifted to the 17-55mm. The problem is that I've been checking the Canon website for a refurbished one ever since I started this thread two weeks ago and there's been no inventory. Well, less than thirty minutes ago I checked and they had stock!!! I quickly punched the button and I will hopefully be in possession of this jewel next week. Interestingly, I had signed up to CanonPriceWatch and found an email after-the-fact that Canon had five refurbished units available...email was timed 3:09 CST. My purchase was at 3:33 CST by roughly 3:45 CST when I checked back on the site the lens was back on "out of stock" status....they went FAST!!! But........I got one!!!

I'm excited as a youngun at Christmas!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for all the feedback and food for thought...I'm sure I'll have some more questions, though.

Ed

Hmmm....I'm curious, but do the refurbished lenses come with the front and rear caps? Seems they try hard to push them as "accessories".... If so, I need to be ordering at least a front cap.

Ed

Intheswamp wrote in post #16484862
Hmmm....I'm curious, but do the refurbished lenses come with the front and rear caps? Seems they try hard to push them as "accessories".... If so, I need to be ordering at least a front cap.

Ed

Just received a 17-55 f2.6 from Canon Direct. I had the same question as you when I ordered it.

It came nicely packaged with front & rear lens caps.

No hood included, same as my other Canon lens purchases.

stpix, thanks for the information! I won't worry about it now.

Best wishes,
Ed

I'll sell you my Tamron. I bought the Canon 18-55 IS STM to get me by until I can get the 15-85. I really need IS. Starting to like the 18-55 though.

Intheswamp wrote in post #16438716
I use the 18-135 pretty much through all of it's length, but tend to work most towards the middle and in the wide angle region. I'm looking for a lens to more or less to keep on the camera all of the time. The 18-135mm that I have now stays on the camera 99%.

I'm a hobbiest and my shooting runs from street scenes to landscapes to people to...it's varied. I know a single lens will not cover everything, but I'm looking for the "it stays on my camera most of the time" lens....and one that will produce good image quality.



Thanks,
Ed

It sounds like you already have a "stay on the camera" lens. But if your 18-135 is not the STM version, you might get some improvement by trading up. To me it seems that the 18-135 is the best choice for the photography you do.

Choosing between the 18-135STM and the 15-85 would depend on whether you value the 15-18 range over the 85-135 range.

I'm curious as to what made you decide on the 17-55mm. I just went through the same dicision process, and went with the Tamron 17-50mm (non-VC, first version). The only way to see the differences between any lenses nowadays is to see samples online, look at test charts, and get feedback from users. Samples online are typically adjusted for sharpness, contrast, etc., in post processing. Test charts amples tend to be unprocessed images (if you don't count the conversion to jpeg from raw). And feedback is pretty much one person's pinion based on their lens, and not usually that of someone who has made a side-by-side comparison.

IMO, the most unbiased of those are the test chart images, but they aren't the end-all be-all of any decision making process. When I look at the test charts for the 17-55, the 15-85, and the 17-50, I see better IQ in the Tamron then the Canons. Less vignetting, better contrast, less hints at CA/fringing, and sharper throughout. The Canons tend to have less barrel/pincushion distortion, but (to me) that's the easiest of all to fix in post with the correct software.

IMO, sharpness, contrast, and lack of CA are the most important. Flaring is important, but I find I don't shoot in situations where flaring is an issue with anything I shoot.

The added IS on the Canon's is great, but at a constant 2.8, the Tamron I expect to give me the shutter speeds needed where it won't be a factor.

On top of all that, the price of the Tamron is way less then any of the Canons. Of course most of that has to do with the fact that it's an 'older' lens, but quality glass is quality glass, new or old.

The reason I'm curious as to why you (and others) went with your decision is I'm wondering if I missed something. It does seem that the Canon(s) will get recommended more frequently then the Tamron, but I really feel that has a lot to do with people wanting the Canon label on their lens, or justifying their purchase (which is ok).

KirkS518 wrote in post #16486691
I'm curious as to what made you decide on the 17-55mm. I just went through the same dicision process, and went with the Tamron 17-50mm (non-VC, first version). The only way to see the differences between any lenses nowadays is to see samples online, look at test charts, and get feedback from users. Samples online are typically adjusted for sharpness, contrast, etc., in post processing. Test charts amples tend to be unprocessed images (if you don't count the conversion to jpeg from raw). And feedback is pretty much one person's pinion based on their lens, and not usually that of someone who has made a side-by-side comparison.

IMO, the most unbiased of those are the test chart images, but they aren't the end-all be-all of any decision making process. When I look at the test charts for the 17-55, the 15-85, and the 17-50, I see better IQ in the Tamron then the Canons. Less vignetting, better contrast, less hints at CA/fringing, and sharper throughout. The Canons tend to have less barrel/pincushion distortion, but (to me) that's the easiest of all to fix in post with the correct software.

IMO, sharpness, contrast, and lack of CA are the most important. Flaring is important, but I find I don't shoot in situations where flaring is an issue with anything I shoot.

The added IS on the Canon's is great, but at a constant 2.8, the Tamron I expect to give me the shutter speeds needed where it won't be a factor.

On top of all that, the price of the Tamron is way less then any of the Canons. Of course most of that has to do with the fact that it's an 'older' lens, but quality glass is quality glass, new or old.

The reason I'm curious as to why you (and others) went with your decision is I'm wondering if I missed something. It does seem that the Canon(s) will get recommended more frequently then the Tamron, but I really feel that has a lot to do with people wanting the Canon label on their lens, or justifying their purchase (which is ok).

While not directed a me, I played with both the Canon 17-55 and the Tamron 17-50 on my trusty 30D before I bought the Canon. For me price was not a concern as I was already prepared to spend $800 on the 17-55.

For the 20 mins I played with both of them, I felt the Canon focused faster, and was quieter when doing do. Also, the canon build 'felt' better both in construction and in m hand when using it. The Tamron felt too small (Mind you, I used to use a 24-70 L on my 30D, so the only slightly smaller frame was a welcome yet familiar feel)

Also, dont forget about IS. The Tamron doesn't have it. (At least the one I played with was the non-VC, and the OP was looking at the non-VC) I snapped this photo last night of my daughter @ f2.8 1/15 handheld with the 17-55 IS: Sample-Skydrive Love IS, even on the 'standard' zooms. I was in M or AV I forget when I was shooting something else and I turned around and too that picture, it would have trash without IS.


That being said, when I came home from testing (short of the shots where IS played a role) I saw no real life difference between them in the results. Since I was OK with the $800 I opted for the Canon. This is going to be my stay-on-lens so I valued the feel in my hand, fast focusing, and IS over the price. Love the new Canon lens cap too