horton581 Mostly Lurking 13 posts Joined Mar 2013 More info | Sep 15, 2013 13:37 | #1 I'm curious to know if the Canon is worth the extra money. I want a good walk around lens with the best IQ for the best price. I don't go through lens quickly, so, once I get one, I usually keep it for a long time.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Sep 15, 2013 14:34 | #2 The 17-55 on the 70D is a great combo, and right now the price on the 17-55 is very low making it very attractive. If you plan on using the the lens with the dual pixel AF keeping it a Canon lens may yield better performance, I have not heard yet if anyone has tried it with the Tamron and if it works. Cameras: 7D2, S100
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Sep 15, 2013 14:48 | #3 I bought a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 nonVC for use as my main lens on holiday earlier this year with my 60D. 5Diii | 35/2IS | 100/2.8L | 300/4L
LOG IN TO REPLY |
60DShim Member 62 posts Likes: 1 Joined Feb 2013 More info | Sep 15, 2013 15:02 | #4 PH68 wrote in post #16298736  I bought a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 nonVC for use as my main lens on holiday earlier this year with my 60D. Got lots of nice sharp images with it too. The Tamron non-VC version is a lot lighter than the Canon 17-55, which helps when carrying it around all day. I too have the Tamron 17-50 nonVC with a 60D. It does take some really sharp images. For the money you save you really can't go wrong, IMO. Canon 60D | Tamron 17-50 f2.8 | Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 | Sigma 30 f1.4
LOG IN TO REPLY |
bob_r Goldmember More info | Sep 15, 2013 15:46 | #5 horton581 wrote in post #16298527 Will I get just as good IQ for less money? No. Canon 7D, 5D, 35L, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135L, 200L, 10-22, 17-55, 70-300, 100-400L, 500D, 580EX(2).
LOG IN TO REPLY |
I have both. I'm getting better images with the Canon. My Tamron misses focus more often.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Sep 15, 2013 16:46 | #7 I know you didn't ask about it, but I have the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS and have nothing but good things to say about it.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
pdrober2 Goldmember  2,318 posts Joined Nov 2010 Location: Durham, NC More info | Sep 15, 2013 16:51 | #8 Best for the price is 17-50 nonVC. Best is 17-55....I loved that lens Fujifilm X-T1 | 23 | 27 | 56 | 90 | 55-200
LOG IN TO REPLY |
YashicaFX2 Goldmember 1,003 posts Likes: 1 Joined Aug 2013 Location: A quiet place in the country. More info | Sep 15, 2013 20:11 | #9  Permanent banPH68 wrote in post #16298736 I bought a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 nonVC for use as my main lens on holiday earlier this year with my 60D. Got lots of nice sharp images with it too. The Tamron non-VC version is a lot lighter than the Canon 17-55, which helps when carrying it around all day. 60DShim wrote in post #16298760 I too have the Tamron 17-50 nonVC with a 60D. It does take some really sharp images. For the money you save you really can't go wrong, IMO. pdrober2 wrote in post #16299007 Best for the price is 17-50 nonVC. Best is 17-55....I loved that lens I have the 17-50 non-VC on a 60D. Nice setup. Focuses quickly and accurately. For $300 it was a steal. I have no interest in the 17-55. I am kinda cheap, though. Dedicated APS-c shooter. Gripped 60D, 60 2.8, 10-22, 15-85, Σ70-200 OS and a big white something or other! Plus a 5D w/28-75.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Sep 16, 2013 01:09 | #10 I have the tamron, and it's all right, but not impressive to be honest. Focus isn't the best, especially at tracking. The most impressive feature of the Tamron is its price. If you're mainly planning to use it for landscapes or similar things, the tamron will probably perform just as good. If you're planning to use it for more demanding things, I'd look further into the canon.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Paulstw Senior Member 827 posts Likes: 2 Joined Nov 2012 More info | Sep 16, 2013 03:18 | #11 I don't know why, if you've looked at the images from each lens in this category, why you'd want the Tamron. The Sigma OS is sharper than all of them, and half the price of the Canon. The Canon however is sharper at the corners. At 17mm the corners kinda fall apart on the Tamron and Sigma, but the canon still maintains cool IQ.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
nightcat Goldmember 4,533 posts Likes: 28 Joined Aug 2008 More info | Sep 16, 2013 05:27 | #12 I had the Canon 17-55mm and was not impressed. If I were to buy a zoom at this focal length, I would be choosing between the Tamron and the Sigma 17-50mm. I think the Tamron would be the best bang for the buck. If you feel you need stabilization, get the Sigma.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Tessa Playing with fire  1,705 posts Likes: 59 Joined Sep 2008 More info | Sep 16, 2013 05:37 | #13 Shooter9 wrote in post #16298907 I have both. I'm getting better images with the Canon. My Tamron misses focus more often. This. I have the Tamron and when the light gets even remotely challenging, it hunts for focus like you wouldn't believe. Though when it does find focus, the picture quality is very nice. Pull the lever, Kronk!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
umphotography grabbing their Johnson  More info | Canon is the crown jewel in this category. 17-55 is a remarkably sharp lens. It beats a tamron to pieces. Used them both. No contest. Mike
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Sep 16, 2013 07:36 | #15 umphotography wrote in post #16300285 Canon is the crown jewel in this category. 17-55 is a remarkably sharp lens. It beats a tamron to pieces. Used them both. No contest. I have to agree, yes the Canon costs more (much more), but when every picture is tack sharp you forget the cost. The 17-55 is the must have EFS canon lens. Cameras & Lens all due to my kind wife
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in 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!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is ealarcon 504 guests, 138 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
