Canon 17-55mm IS or Tamron 17-50mm?


Status
Not open for further replies.

jk30D

New Member
Oct 21, 2007
115
0
0
#1
Hi Guys and gals, was wondering if anyone of you have experience in both these 2 lens? I'm planning to get a zoom lens that can be versatile in Low Light and is also sharp enough as compared to the Canon 17-55mm IS. The lens I'm looking at will be used more in indoor events. Cost wise, these 2 lens are actually way way apart but, how about sharpness, color and contrast? Any comments from the experts here? :dunno:
 

oxidizer

New Member
Apr 17, 2006
166
0
0
oxidizer.shutterchance.com
#2
hi! the canon 17-55mm is truly unbeatable in every aspect. unless you are comparing it to its L lens cousins! guess the question that should make/break your decision: will you be using flash to shoot indoors? If not,the IS really makes a diff and you could almost shoot handheld at 1/20 at the 55mm end and still get consistently steady shots.

the tamron is very good value at its price and unless the highest fidelity is required, it works great.

Other notable differences
1. focusing speed
2. focusing noise! can't beat silent usm
 

CreaXion

New Member
Jun 15, 2006
1,191
0
0
Planet Earth
#3
Dun know why. Used the 2 lenses. Personal Observations made

Tamron seems to have more contrast and sharpness in comparison with the Canon's. I find that even the colour for 17 - 40 F4L colour is also better than the Canon 17-55. My developer who is also a photographer also find it so. He was wondering why my photos turned out less contrast and colourful than usual when i was using the Canon's
 

jk30D

New Member
Oct 21, 2007
115
0
0
#4
hmmmm.... as expected Tamron does have the issue of focusing speed and noise. Noise wise, I'm not too particular but I'm a little concern on the focusing speed. As for Flash, I will definately be using it as I will like to make sure everything is bright enough and images can be sharp. With a f2.8, I believe Flash is still needed to ensure sharpness. But I guess I can lessen the flash power and get a good image output with f2.8? Is there any website that has articles comparing 17-55mm IS (Canon) to 17-50mm (Tamron). I'm actually using the 28-135mm (Canon) now and I feel that the images are not as sharp as what I want to achieve for event shots. 17-55mm is really very tempting but it will be the last I will purchase. Need more comments from users........ Thanks for the comments..... I hope more can write in to help me out...... :sweat:
 

jeremyftk

New Member
Jun 24, 2005
694
0
0
32
Eastern Singapore
#5
You kidding me right? The 17-55 IS can smash the Tamron into the ground anytime... The comparision here is practically apple and banana...

Oh and btw, flash does not necessarily ensure sharpness... ;)
 

jk30D

New Member
Oct 21, 2007
115
0
0
#6
hahaa :bsmilie:, precisely, that is why I need some image comparison to know exactly how different in Contrast, Color and sharpness are they. Been hearing from the forum that 17-50mm is the alternative for 17-55mm but wants to know what I'm losing if I choose the 17-50mm for 17-55mm IS ;)
 

scrappy

New Member
Sep 3, 2007
206
0
0
34
#7
I don't know too much about the 17-50, besides the fact that it's pretty sharp and it doesn't have a USM equivalent, but I CAN say that the 17-55 IS is truly an excellent lens, focusing is extremely quick, IS helps me get shots regularly at around 1/5s, and most importantly I'm never afraid to use it wide open because it's simply that sharp. Being built with plastic (ie. non-L quality) is a bit of a downer, but that's not to say that build quality is shoddy because it's pretty high quality plastic.

If you've the financial means to get it, then there's pretty much no decision to be made if you're on an APS-C sensor.
 

thengz

New Member
Aug 29, 2007
901
0
0
#9
You kidding me right? The 17-55 IS can smash the Tamron into the ground anytime... The comparision here is practically apple and banana...

Oh and btw, flash does not necessarily ensure sharpness... ;)
Last I checked, apple and banana's price quite close. And both of them don't taste that bad, although some bananas sting my mouth a little.

More like comparing Lawry's Prime Ribs with the food court western stall.

Guess what the TS wants to know if the price difference is worth it. :think:
 

Headshotzx

Senior Member
Dec 14, 2007
5,841
0
36
25
Punggol
#10
I've seen somewhere here on CS that Tamron service centre has closed shop?

If you've got the money, get the Canon 17-55mm. If you want to save a bit, get the Sigma 18-50mm.

A kit1 18-55mm IS (make sure it's IS) lens + flash is also quite good, but nowhere as good (or as expensive) as a 17-55.
 

happyflic

New Member
Nov 16, 2006
107
0
0
40
Jurong
www.flickr.com
#12

CreaXion

New Member
Jun 15, 2006
1,191
0
0
Planet Earth
#13
wow ,from the comparison in above link... seem like Tamron 17-50 @ f2.8is sharper than Canon 17-55 @f2.8.....

:dunno:
Seems like what I experience. Agree that focusing speed is faster on the Canon's. Canon also more silent. It also seems wider somehow. This IS helps in taking low speed. But that is about all. Colour and contrast wise, the Tamron seems better somehow. Forget abt Sigma 18 - 50. It is nowhere near Tamron. Had it before.

Look at the price and decided. To be honest, you can't really tell the diff between the two.
 

Headshotzx

Senior Member
Dec 14, 2007
5,841
0
36
25
Punggol
#14
Seems like what I experience. Agree that focusing speed is faster on the Canon's. Canon also more silent. It also seems wider somehow. This IS helps in taking low speed. But that is about all. Colour and contrast wise, the Tamron seems better somehow. Forget abt Sigma 18 - 50. It is nowhere near Tamron. Had it before.

Look at the price and decided. To be honest, you can't really tell the diff between the two.
If this is the case, put your money into the Tamron 17-50. There's a mass order going on for these are a ridiculously low price, so grab that if you're buying soon.
 

calebk

Senior Member
Jul 25, 2006
10,594
0
0
Clementi
#15
You kidding me right? The 17-55 IS can smash the Tamron into the ground anytime... The comparision here is practically apple and banana...
Really? Care to provide sources for your "worlds apart" comparison?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom