I'm becoming a Tamron Fan-Boy!

So a few weeks ago I was looking to upgrade from my 18-55 and 55-250 Canon lenses. They're good, but they are lacking in many ways. I wanted something that would give me good results SOOC (sharpness, color, contrast), and was faster. Seriously considered the 24-105L to start, but as purely a hobbyist, even $600 can be difficult to justify (although it is a nice lens), and it isn't any (much) faster. I can only compare lenses based on what I read online, and what I see in image samples and tests, as there really isn't a camera store around here that I can actually try out a lens.

After much consideration, I picked up the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 Non-VC a couple of weeks ago to replace the 18-55mm. I was floored! That was the best $200 I've spent in a long time! I have no complaints at all about any aspect of it, except, in all honesty, I do miss that extra 5mm. But, now I can take worthy indoor shots, and everything has been crazy sharp (I'm a pixel peeper). I'd post a sample, but really all I've had a chance to use it for is some product shots (ebay) which are just, well, boring.

Then I wanted to replace the 55-250mm, which I have hardly used, simply because I wasn't excited by what it produces. Don't get me wrong, it's a fantastic lens for the money, but it's still what it is. What I really want is the 100-400L, but that's not going to happen any time in the foreseeable future. The 70-200 f/4 was considered, but if I was going to go that route, I would go to the IS or 2.8 version. After reading a number of threads, and doing some searching and comparing, I decided to pick up a Tamron 70-300 VC. I was a little leery that it may not do what I wanted it to do, but figured I'd give it a try. Once again, Tamron knocked me over! I LOVE this lens! It arrived today, and I went to a local park to get a feel for it. I still have a ways to go, but this lens is doing things SOOC I didn't think I'd be able to get without going to an L.

I nailed a couple of decent BIF shots (my first attempt), and got all sorts of great shots of birds and squirrels (exciting, huh?). The thing that is impressing me the most id how good many of the shots are SOOC. The color looks great, the contrast pops, and again, the sharpness is great, even at 300mm.

Total for both lenses came to $475 ($200+$275 including shipping and fees), and I can definitely say I got my money's worth. I have nothing against Canon, except the prices. Sigma is in my bag as well.

Here is a sample from the 70-300mm, but it's not SOOC. It was just one my daughter thought was really cute, so it's one I played with tonight. With the 55-250, I was never able to get a shot to look this good no matter what I tried in post.

I think these lenses will get me to shoot a lot more, and I'm looking forward to it!

Glad you like your Tamrons

Thou I have to say until you try something better, you simply don't know what you are missing out

Just ask Talley and he'll know what I mean

I know. I read (and re-read, and re-read) his comparisons, and to me it came down to value for the dollar. It would have (not 'would of') cost me $1000 or more to get the comparable L's, and I can't justify that at this point.

Dear Kirk,

Nice tree rat!

Some people are easily satisfied, and some people are never satisfied. Some people will only consider a brand name, and some will only consider an off brand.

"It's a big old goofy world", to quote John Prine. While space is getting tight there is still room for everyone.

Good luck with your lenses!

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Congratulations on the new lenses, Kirk. I'm a bit of a Tamron fanboy (girl!) myself. I have the same 17-50 you have and my copy is almost ridiculously sharp. A great lens. I also have the Tamron 55-200, a great little telezoom that is always overlooked but that is optically much better than the pricetag (around 100 euro new!) would suggest. I shot birds a year and a half with that lens before buying the Canon 300/4.
So my experience with Tamron lenses is very good and I am waiting anxiously for their 150-600mm lens. People don't expect it to be very good, especially with that low price tag, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be a pretty decent lens.

The squirrel looks great by the way. Good focus. I never shot with the 70-300 but it looks like another good lens!

Again, congrats!

KirkS518 wrote in post #16525956

Great shot

kin2son wrote in post #16525979
Glad you like your Tamrons

Thou I have to say until you try something better, you simply don't know what you are missing out

Just ask Talley and he'll know what I mean

Canon will soon be playing catch up in the lens department like they are currently doing in the sensor department.

I think their next offering will use the Nokia 42 MP cell phone sensor.

Say that tongue in cheek but if they don't revisit their strategy may be true. They are loosing the sensor war in a big way and now slipping in the lens department as well.

They own the ergonomics area, so I guess they are good..

Sibil wrote in post #16528239
Great shot

Agree..

Have a LOT of fun with Tamron !!

brianh4204 wrote in post #16528271
They are loosing the sensor war in a big way and now slipping in the lens department as well.

They're losing the DR war, they still offer great high-ISO performance.

How are they losing the lens war? Ok.. price-wise, their lenses suck, but that's about it.

1Tanker wrote in post #16528306
They're losing the DR war, they still offer great high-ISO performance.

How are they losing the lens war? Ok.. price-wise, their lenses suck, but that's about it.

I think that they are losing the lens war "price-wise, their lenses suck, but that's about it".. Was true until recently, now there are lens on the market that not only beat the price point but also perform on par with the Canons. I think it would be interesting to do a poll to see how many have recently purchased the non Canon options.

A few examples may be:

Tamron 90 Macro
Sigma 18-35 1.8
Tokina 11-16
Tamron 70-200 VC
Tamron 24-70 VC
Sigma 35 1.4

Pretty impressive lineup..

Sibil wrote in post #16528239
Great shot

brianh4204 wrote in post #16528272
Agree..

Thanks!

1Tanker wrote in post #16528306
They're losing the DR war, they still offer great high-ISO performance.

How are they losing the lens war? Ok.. price-wise, their lenses suck, but that's about it.

brianh4204 wrote in post #16528363
I think that they are losing the lens war "price-wise, their lenses suck, but that's about it".. Was true until recently, now there are lens on the market that not only beat the price point but also perform on par with the Canons. I think it would be interesting to do a poll to see how many have recently purchased the non Canon options.

A few examples may be:

Tamron 90 Macro
Sigma 18-35 1.8
Tokina 11-16
Tamron 70-200 VC
Tamron 24-70 VC
Sigma 35 1.4

Pretty impressive lineup..

I think price is a huge consideration for the average buyer of photo equipment, right along with IQ.

The gap between a Canon lens and a third party lens of decent quality is, for the most part, double. That's quite a bit for an enthusiast or the general consumer. As an enthusiast, I don't use my equipment to make money, and I think it's safe to assume most don't. The IQ of the 3rd party lenses really come so close or in some cases equal/exceed the Canon counterpart, that justifying that additional cost can not be made for many users.

When you compare lenses like the Tamron 24-70VC to the Canon 24-70L, can you really see a difference worth $800-$1000? For most users, the answer would be 'No'. What you get with the Canon is a quality lens with a prestigious name. With the Tamron, you get a quality lens from a well-known manufacturer, and a 6 year warranty.

IMO, if Canon is the industry leader, they should never be playing catch up, they should always be leading the pack. They should be the one's developing an affordable, quality 150-600mm, or a lens line up that has a dock like Sigma. They should also be able to get rid of the horrendous CA on their 85mm line (I mean, really Canon?).

I love Canon. I always owned Canon lenses and bodies since my first Canon TX with a 1.4. I ran to the camera store when the EOS 620 hit the shelves in May '87, and finally could afford one in December 87. I drooled for years over the digital bodies. But it seems that lately, between lenses and sensors, they have been somewhat resting on their laurels, and that may bite them in the end.

When Canon comes out with stellar lenses that are affordable for the enthusiast (which I realize is all relative), my bag may fill again with their lenses. But until then, I'm going for the best bang for the buck I can.

And for those that are curious, here's what's currently in my bag; Sigma 10-20mm, Tamron 17-50mm non-VC, Canon 40mm STM, Canon 50mm 1.8 MkI, Canon 85mm 1.8, Canon 100mm Macro 2.8, Tamron 70-300mm VC, Pentax Super-Tak 50mm 1.4, CZ Biotar 58mm f2, Tamron 200-400mm. Those are my active lenses. Recently removed, but still in my possession are the Canon 18-55mm IS II, Canon 55-250 IS II. Nope, no L lenses, and I doubt there will be any for sometime.

***NOTE*** - This is not, and was not intended to be a Canon Bashing rant. It is my opinion and my reasoning for why I have what I have. Take it for what it's worth (and remember, I'm just a GWAC on an internet forum!).

KirkS518 wrote in post #16528758
I think price is a huge consideration for the average buyer of photo equipment, right along with IQ.

The gap between a Canon lens and a third party lens of decent quality is, for the most part, double. That's quite a bit for an enthusiast or the general consumer. As an enthusiast, I don't use my equipment to make money, and I think it's safe to assume most don't. The IQ of the 3rd party lenses really come so close or in some cases equal/exceed the Canon counterpart, that justifying that additional cost can not be made for many users.

When you compare lenses like the Tamron 24-70VC to the Canon 24-70L, can you really see a difference worth $800-$1000? For most users, the answer would be 'No'. What you get with the Canon is a quality lens with a prestigious name. With the Tamron, you get a quality lens from a well-known manufacturer, and a 6 year warranty.

IMO, if Canon is the industry leader, they should never be playing catch up, they should always be leading the pack. They should be the one's developing an affordable, quality 150-600mm, or a lens line up that has a dock like Sigma. They should also be able to get rid of the horrendous CA on their 85mm line (I mean, really Canon?).

I love Canon. I always owned Canon lenses and bodies since my first Canon TX with a 1.4. I ran to the camera store when the EOS 620 hit the shelves in May '87, and finally could afford one in December 87. I drooled for years over the digital bodies. But it seems that lately, between lenses and sensors, they have been somewhat resting on their laurels, and that may bite them in the end.

When Canon comes out with stellar lenses that are affordable for the enthusiast (which I realize is all relative), my bag may fill again with their lenses. But until then, I'm going for the best bang for the buck I can.

And for those that are curious, here's what's currently in my bag; Sigma 10-20mm, Tamron 17-50mm non-VC, Canon 40mm STM, Canon 50mm 1.8 MkI, Canon 85mm 1.8, Canon 100mm Macro 2.8, Tamron 70-300mm VC, Pentax Super-Tak 50mm 1.4, CZ Biotar 58mm f2, Tamron 200-400mm. Those are my active lenses. Recently removed, but still in my possession are the Canon 18-55mm IS II, Canon 55-250 IS II. Nope, no L lenses, and I doubt there will be any for sometime.

***NOTE*** - This is not, and was not intended to be a Canon Bashing rant. It is my opinion and my reasoning for why I have what I have. Take it for what it's worth (and remember, I'm just a GWAC on an internet forum!).

Well it's safe to say that you will never take good photos because your gear is lack luster at best. (this was a joke to mimic a typical "L" die hard owner)

Seriously I agree. My dads boss makes tons of money and only buys L glass and he essentially talks down about my glass thinking it's sub par.

...yet I'm the one who creates better images because he refuses to go above ISO 800. He can never take non blurry photos due to his shutter not being high enough.

It's not the gear it's the peanut behind the viewfinder!

Talley, you're comparisons had a lot to do with my buying decisions. Thanks for those!