DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Comparing the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 to Canon Primes
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 9 of 9, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/09/2008 01:41:32 PM · #1
[thumb]644325[/thumb]

Did some quick tests today with the Tamron 17-50 and compared it against two Canon primes at the same focal lengths. I'm pretty impressed.

What do you guys think?
Don't forget to click the view at full size link.
02/09/2008 01:47:45 PM · #2
How handy, I'm thinking about getting the Tamron in the not too distant future to replace my 18-55 kit lens. It does compare pretty well, theres not much in it at all. Whats it like for low-light auto focus?
02/09/2008 01:54:16 PM · #3
Originally posted by McJamweasel:

Whats it like for low-light auto focus?


In a darkened room with light only enough for a 1/5second exposure at f/2.8 ISO 800. The lens nailed focus quickly. That's significantly darker than most churches I'd be shooting at, so I say not bad at all.

Message edited by author 2008-02-09 13:54:52.
02/09/2008 02:32:12 PM · #4
I am REALLY glad that you like this lens! I might get shot for this, but when I compared it to my bud's Canon 17-40L, I could not see any improvement in the images using the Canon. That is not to say that I do not believe in Canon glass as I have lots - it is just this lens gives a little more reach, is a great price, and has really performed well for me over the year I have had it.
02/09/2008 03:19:56 PM · #5
Thanks... unfortunately I can't compare it directly to a Canon L lens, since I don't have access to one. I know the build quality of the L lenses is higher, but then against, I don't need weather sealing or white paint as long as I get good images. The fact that it competes favorably with the Canon primes makes me happy.

ETA: The one thing I wish it did have, but is missing are hyperfocal markings on the focusing ring. Not a big deal for me as I'm no landscape photographer, but you'd thing a wide-angle lens would have them.

Message edited by author 2008-02-09 15:33:35.
02/09/2008 07:35:38 PM · #6
Pretty nice. I have the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 for "super wide" shots (I pretty much only use it on the 5D as a Full Frame camera). It's equivalent, length wise, to the Canon EFS 10-22mm lens (though not in quality, I'm afraid). The slightly longer end of yours, and the the fixed aperture sound appealing to me. I figure I'll replace mine at some point, looking for a better quality lens, so it's good to hear of your experiences with it.


02/09/2008 08:04:39 PM · #7
It looks very good.

From what I see, the 50 1.4 is slightly sharper at 2.8, but that's to be expected since it's not wide open. I'm seriously considering replacing my Nikon 18-70 kit lens with this at some point. However, I really need something seriously wide first.
02/10/2008 12:56:50 AM · #8
Originally posted by dwterry:

Pretty nice. I have the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 for "super wide" shots (I pretty much only use it on the 5D as a Full Frame camera). It's equivalent, length wise, to the Canon EFS 10-22mm lens (though not in quality, I'm afraid). The slightly longer end of yours, and the the fixed aperture sound appealing to me. I figure I'll replace mine at some point, looking for a better quality lens, so it's good to hear of your experiences with it.


Well, there is a problem for you. It's not compatible with full frame sensors.
02/10/2008 01:13:11 AM · #9
I love this lens. It's on my camera unless I specifically need something longer or wider.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 12/05/2020 02:18:36 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 12/05/2020 02:18:36 PM EST.