| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/22/2006 11:45:00 AM · #1 |
I had my heart set on the Tamron but when to a local photo store for advice...the guy there recommended a couple lenses. The best one being the Canon 17-85mm and the other being the Tamron 28-75mm.
I had my heart set on the Tamron 24-135 but he said it was not a very good lens and the Tamron 28-75mm is much better.
Is the Canon worth the extra $110 over either Tamron?
I want a good walkabout lens...which lens?!?!?
|
|
|
|
06/22/2006 12:01:55 PM · #2 |
Wooof, lots of lens threads today.... We really have to start putting a mandatory "Did you do a forum search on this topic yet?"... My fingers are getting tired :) from saying the same thing 8 times in one day...
Answer:
Your salesman is weird.
You should give us some details as to what you will shoot... I am guessing that you will be looking for something of a walk-around lens...
The 17-85 IS is cool, but hardly 'better' than the 24-135...
The IS is the primary cost for that lens... the optics are OK, but not all that much better than some lower end lenses...
It's a bit of a waste of money for landscape photography as that is mostly tripod work... Hence, the wideness is sorta only partially useful... A bit of a mixed up lens as it is...
Most people consider it an inferior lens because it delivers approx 2+ stops of Image Stabilization, but it is 2 stops slower than other comparable lenses... This means that your shutter speed will be two times slower with the lens aperture wide open... the Image Stabilization will help prevent the camera shake that will make your pictures blurry because of low shutter speeds, but it WILL NOT help if our subject is moving, even fairly slowly... f/5.6 indoors in most buildings is kinda crummy... Read on for more...
The 24-135 is a really nice lens. Sharp as heck and blows the 17-85 away for general optical quality...
Some people don't like it because it too is a variable aperture lens. It's less of an issue on the 350D because of the type of autofocus system, but light is REALLY important in taking pictures...
Those that like the 24-135 often find it still not quite wide enough for many types of pictures...
The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is even less wide, but will allow MUCH more light... It's really good at taking portraits about halfway through the zoom travel and performs really well... This lens is a fantastic bang for the buck and delivers performance far beyond it's price bracket... Very good in every way that is going to be important to you. This lens range became popular in the days of film cameras, but digital is a little different, so it's not quite as useful in the camera you own.
Tamron has come out with a new lens this summer which is probably an even better compromise...
The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is pretty much everything the 28-75 is for light gathering and overall optical quality, but is just that little bit wider to make it a very useful lens for the 1.6x crop factor...
Lenses that have 3-4x in their optical range are generally better throughout than longer ranged lenses...
For just a little over 300 bucks US, with the 17-50 f/2.8, you will be getting near pro-level light gathering quality, good sturdy build and very, very good optical quality as well...
It's definitely worth it to check that lens out over the 17-85, 24-135, and probably worth it over the 28-75...
Not to be ignored is the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-5.6... which is also extremely sharp... The only real drawback here is that you lose 2 stops of light when you zoom in... Two stops of light is 4 times as much! It doubles each stop... It's actually quite a big difference.
As you learn more, you will also realize that lenses that have an aperture that is f/#.# instead of f/#.#-#.# also have some other nice features that make them 'better'... |
|
|
|
06/22/2006 12:02:15 PM · #3 |
i'm walking around with the canon 70-200mm f/4L at the moment,
my tamron is gathering dust.
its an awesome lens, not too expensive either |
|
|
|
06/22/2006 12:05:41 PM · #4 |
Yeah, but goodman, you are walking around in AFRICA, with elephants and all sorts of things running around that can look amazing from a little farther away... No fair... :)
|
|
|
|
06/22/2006 12:07:07 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by slickchik:
Is the Canon worth the extra $110 over either Tamron? |
YES
Originally posted by eschelar:
The 17-85 IS is cool, but hardly 'better' than the 24-135... |
I think it is far greater then the lens above. I have used tamron and will never go back even tho SOME of the lenses are ok. The IS is worth the money and you will not be unhappy with it and for the few extra focal feet you get the 17-85 is the better lens hands down. Its the next best thing to a 24-70 and I wish I never sold my 17-85.
BTW: the optics are fantastic for its worth.
edit to add: I also own a 28-300 tamron and its garbage. Its got me to the 17-85 and then to the 24-70L f2.8 which is why I will not support tamron.
Message edited by author 2006-06-22 12:09:05. |
|
|
|
06/22/2006 12:24:38 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by notonline:
edit to add: I also own a 28-300 tamron and its garbage. Its got me to the 17-85 and then to the 24-70L f2.8 which is why I will not support tamron. |
You used a 10 or 11:1 film qaulity zoom lens from Tamron and condemn everything the company makes because of that? Guess if you ever eat one bad hamburger you'll say all beef is garbage too?
The tamron SP lenses high quality and will go up against any canon lense, and beat many of them - the 17-85 IS is beaten by the SP24-135 - better optics, more range and when I compared them, $200 less costly. I shot them side by side on my body and looked at the images. I chose the tamron and have not regretted it at all.
It's your money, but the 24-70 canon is no better than the tamron 28-75, but is 3 times the price.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2006 12:31:02 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by slickchik:
I had my heart set on the Tamron but when to a local photo store for advice...the guy there recommended a couple lenses. The best one being the Canon 17-85mm and the other being the Tamron 28-75mm.
I had my heart set on the Tamron 24-135 but he said it was not a very good lens and the Tamron 28-75mm is much better.
Is the Canon worth the extra $110 over either Tamron?
I want a good walkabout lens...which lens?!?!? |
tamron 24-135. It has great range, very close focusing and nice macro, and one key feature for night photography that most lenses do not have - it keeps the same focus point throught the zoom range - so at ngiht when you have to MF due to the darkenss, you can zoom in, focus, and zoom back to 24mm and the image will still be in focus. My sigma 18-50 2.8 does not do this and it sucks for night work, let me tell you - i'm lucky if 25% of the images are properly focused - the tamron lens -0 100% are right on. it is also a fantastic studio lens.
As to the camera store guy - check out the opions here. Very few lenses are rated better than than the tamron 24-135 SP. I have been a salesman - their job is to sell you something now. Perhaps he had the 17-85 in stock, or makes more commission on it, or there is some incentive to sell it (a bonus, free lunch, etc).
I don't think the 17-85 is a bad lens. But IS is not a big deal at the wider focal lengths - you can handlhold 25mm no problem. The 85 end is not enough for a walkaround IMO, unless you walkaround inside all the time.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2006 02:23:42 PM · #8 |
Thank you!
I am thinking I will go with the Tamron 24-135 and if I am really that unhappy with it, I can sell it pretty easily for not much of a loss...I have gift certificates to B&H plus the rebate..so it is not much $$ out of my pocket...it would be like renting it, ;-) |
|
|
|
06/22/2006 02:35:47 PM · #9 |
I think you will probably like it a lot...
If you want to go wider, the Tokina 12-24 f/4 is highly recommended and is a nice complement to that lens...
Of course so is the 10-22... :) |
|
|
|
06/22/2006 02:46:36 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
It's your money, but the 24-70 canon is no better than the tamron 28-75, but is 3 times the price. |
Just curious, where do you get that info from? The same site you pointed to for reviews on the Tamron 24-135 gave build quality on the Canon a 9.66 from 265 reviewers and the Tamron a 8.09 from 138 reviewers. The overall rating comes a little closer for price reasons (+ for Tamron, - for Canon).
I've used both, and there's a reason why I spent 3 times the amount for the Canon. I'm not knocking the Tamron, for the price it's a great little lens, but to consider them equal is a bit absurd. |
|
|
|
06/22/2006 03:32:37 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
...the 24-70 canon is no better than the tamron 28-75, but is 3 times the price. |
I'd have to argue with you when you say that the Canon is no better. The Tamron focusses absolutely nowhere near as fast and the Canon is weather-sealed. Whether these facts justify the price difference is, however, open to debate.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/04/2025 01:17:32 AM EDT.
