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 30 Jul 2009 (Thursday) 06:57
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 17-55mm EF-S vs Tamron vs Sigma

 
travis.m.roberts
Member
35 posts
Joined May 2009
Location: Seattle, WA
     
Jul 30, 2009 06:57 |  #1

I am seriously looking into buying a Canon 17-55 EF-S F/2.8 Lens for my 50D. I noticed that Both Sigma and Tamron make a similar lens. Does anyone have any suggestions as to which one they would buy? Also I noticed last night that Sigma (I think) makes a 17-70 (or somewhere around there) F/2.8 lens. Any thoughts? The prices are pretty much all over the spectrum so I am really confused here.


Canon 50D, EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, Tamron 200-400 f/5.6

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
egordon99
Cream of the Crop
10,247 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philly 'burbs
     
Jul 30, 2009 07:03 |  #2

First off, the Sigma 17-70mm is NOT f/2.8 throughout. It "slows down" pretty early on (~20mm I think?) and by 70mm it's f/4.5

The Sigma and Tamron lenses are decent, but they do NOT have image stabilization and do NOT have USM autofocus. They are quite a bit cheaper though. If you can afford it, I'd go with the Canon. If you're on a budget, folks seem to think the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is the best "budget" option.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
merp
Senior Member
490 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2006
     
Jul 30, 2009 07:41 |  #3
bannedPermanently

I am seriously going to tell you that you should not think twice about the efs - 17-55, it is a fantastic lens =) i'd save up (if u must) just to grab this lens. I think I've used that lens more then any other lens during my Iraq deployment, and never had a bad shot when properly used! I was thinking of selling it now because I have a 24-70L, but I think I'm sort of attached to it actually hah..it performed very well all 15months!


as for the sigma, and tamron I have no idea xD but boyy did I like using my 17-55 this year =) this is a useless reply xD




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CosmoKid
Goldmember
Avatar
4,235 posts
Likes: 14
Joined May 2009
Location: NJ
     
Jul 30, 2009 08:02 |  #4

The Tamron 17-50 is a great lens for half the cost of the Canon. IS is not as important with a short focal range lens v. a long one (70-200). Pictures produced between the the Cnaon 17-55 and Tamron 17-50 are VERY similar.

Check out the lens section for sample pictures of both.


Joe- 2 bodies, L 2.8 zoom trilogy and a couple of primes
iRocktheShot.com (external link) - Portfolio (external link)

Gear/Feedback
Facebook "Fan" Page (external link) -

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobfather
Member
57 posts
Joined Apr 2009
     
Jul 30, 2009 08:16 as a reply to  @ CosmoKid's post |  #5

I was on vacation with no tripod. This picture (@ 35mm, 1/4 second exposure) would have been impossible to take without the Canon.

The Canon, Sigma, and Tamron will all shoot very similarly in environments where they can all get enough light. The Canon will dominate in almost complete darkness. Simply put, the Canon will be your most-used lens because it can shoot almost anything, at any time.

Save your money and go for the best.

Edit: In the unresized version, the Canon resolved 8 stars. I also posted a 100% crop from the RAW with no additional sharpening but the default for ACR.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
twii56
Member
48 posts
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Chippewa Lake, Ohio
     
Jul 30, 2009 09:45 |  #6

As with most things in life, you'll never have to apologize when you go for the best, get the Canon.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Marloon
Goldmember
4,323 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC.
     
Jul 30, 2009 11:11 |  #7

i used to have the tammy 17-50. it was a good lens except for that loud motor. if it had some sort of USM related technology, i would have kept it longer than 8 months. I have the 17-55 now and boy! its an amazing lens! you really cannot compete with it.

its really sharp, i use it at f5.6/f8 and its just a tiny bit less sharp than some primes. All in all, you really cannot go wrong with this lens.

but this is not the perfect lens... it does have 2 bad points. build quality, and it sucks dust in like a vac! i already have 1 peice of fiber in the middle of my glass element. but it wont do aything to image quality.


I'm MARLON

Former Canon Platinum CPS member

5DII • 24L • 35L • 50L • 85L • 135L • 200LIS

Wordpress Blog (external link)Youtube Channel (external link)Twitter (external link)Gear List (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RPCrowe
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,262 posts
Likes: 2094
Joined Nov 2005
Location: San Diego County, California, USA
     
Jul 30, 2009 11:44 as a reply to  @ Marloon's post |  #8

If you can afford it....

If you can afford it; go with the Canon. The Tamron is a very nice lens that will provide excellent imagery. However, the IS capability of the 17-55mm f2.8 IS lens puts it apart from the rest of the mid-range zooms. The constant f/2.8 aperture and the IS assistance makes this lens a very viable low-light glass. In fact, I seldom carry a lens specifically for low light shooting.

The image quality of the 17-55mm Canon is outstanding and, IMO, there is no other lens, EF or EFS, that can compete with the advantages of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. I used to carry a 24-70mm f/2.8L as my mid-range zoom. Not only is that lens heavy but, I often needed a wider lens for many shots. I can get by quite well with the 17mm side of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens and I save considerable weight and bulk without sacrificing image quality. Additionally, the f/2.8 aperture without IS capability was often too slow for low light shooting.

The equivalent 28-88mm focal range is great and this lens makes an excellent companion for the 70-200mm f/4L IS. Although the pair are expensive, you will not get a more versatile duo. Add the 1.4x TC to the above combination and you are prepared to shoot just about anything, anywhere. The exceptions being UWA, macro and extreme telephoto for wildlife.


See my images at http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kaigler
Senior Member
Avatar
500 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jul 2009
     
Jul 30, 2009 12:09 |  #9

I got the 17-55 just yesterday and can already tell that its the best lens I own. You will not regret it.


Canon 5D Mk III - Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS, Sigma 85 f/1.4, Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS, Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
38,896 posts
Gallery: 115 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7395
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Jul 30, 2009 12:12 |  #10

Putting IS and USM aside, the 3 lenses in this camp are:

Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 macro
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
Canon 17-55mm f2.8

To get USM and IS, you will spend about $400-500 more than the Sigma and Tamron equivalents. If you get good copies of the Tamron and Sigma, IQ really doesn't play a factor, just the USM and IS. But I agree with the others, if you have the cash, get the USM and IS, it does really add overall value and extra capability to your shooting experience. The only disadvantage, however, is that the Canon is larger and heavier than the other two, not by much, but for some folks, that might be a factor of sorts.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
johnj2803
Senior Member
869 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2009
Location: Miami, FL
     
Jul 30, 2009 12:29 |  #11

i am also looking at replacing my kit lens with this lens. I am in no hurry, for me if budget is a problem, since i am saving up for a f2.8 replacement, i will just have to wait some more to save up enough for the canon version i guess :D

before i read this thread, i almost got the tamron :D

one more thing :D is the sigma a real macro lens? or its macro is just like the 18-55mm kit lens? i am looking to hit 2 birds with one stone too :D


My flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
38,896 posts
Gallery: 115 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7395
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Jul 30, 2009 12:47 |  #12

No, that is not a true 1:1 macro lens, macro in this sense is that you have a shorter focus distance than their prior lenses in this range. Just add Kenko tubes to lenses to "help them along" to be more of a macro lens.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
johnj2803
Senior Member
869 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2009
Location: Miami, FL
     
Jul 30, 2009 12:51 |  #13

ok thanks for that :D


My flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kenshinvt
Member
Avatar
60 posts
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Arlington, VA
     
Jul 30, 2009 13:05 |  #14

not trying to threadjack but this is on topic and i know there are a lot of 17-55 owners here -
with this lens, does the zoom mechanism wear in over time? i.e. does it loosen up?

i know the build quality is not on par with an L, but compared to the well-used 70-200 L I often use, the zoom on this thing is very sticky and hard to turn (comparatively). Does this wear down over time or is that just the nature of the mechanism? perhaps it has something to do with externally extending rather than being internally contained?


7D, 450D gripped, 17-55 2.8 IS USM, 70-200 f/4 L, 50 f/1.4, kit lens, 580 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
38,896 posts
Gallery: 115 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7395
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Jul 30, 2009 13:26 |  #15

Yes, the lens will actually loosen up a bit and possibly develop a bit of zoom creep. Not all of them do it, I have had 3 of these and one did it badly. To me, the optics and IS are great, but the build quality feels almost like the 28-135, but others may disagree.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

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

2,856 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon 17-55mm EF-S vs Tamron vs Sigma
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 Eddy3
641 guests, 335 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.