tamron 17-35mm vs canon 18-55mm


Status
Not open for further replies.
May 10, 2006
291
0
0
#1
Might be getting a 17-35mm tamron..

Guess there are some guys here who upgraded from kit lens canon 18-55mm to this tamron lens.
any diff in the pictures so far?
I reckon there should be better capturing at night since its 2.8 at widest...

Advices? worth the $$?
 

May 10, 2006
291
0
0
#2
and also 17-40L

techincally...the tamron should perform under low light right?
which is a better lens for indoor and wedding dinner shoot?

just some advices...thanks guys
 

donkuok

New Member
Oct 11, 2004
902
0
0
44
Perth, Australia
#3
Go for 17-40L and you cant go wrong.
I used tamron 17-35mm before. I found that the centre sharpness is excellent but the corners were worst. So interm of centre sharpness tamron one is comparable to 17-40L. For corners, canon beats tamron.
 

jnet6

Senior Member
Apr 21, 2004
8,179
0
36
not here often anymore
#4
cannonball said:
Might be getting a 17-35mm tamron..

Guess there are some guys here who upgraded from kit lens canon 18-55mm to this tamron lens.
any diff in the pictures so far?
I reckon there should be better capturing at night since its 2.8 at widest...

Advices? worth the $$?
e 17-40 F4 will give you a better quality.
put aside other lens if you can afford the L lens, and canon has a option of F4 L lens to make it affordable.
 

jeryltan

Senior Member
Jan 5, 2006
3,354
0
0
44
s5.photobucket.com
#5
Of course 17-40L.. Better still, get the 16-35L :devil:

cannonball said:
and also 17-40L

techincally...the tamron should perform under low light right?
which is a better lens for indoor and wedding dinner shoot?

just some advices...thanks guys
 

jdredd

New Member
Mar 30, 2006
1,266
0
0
#6
its a good lens. dont think you can go wrong with it. and 2.8 constant aperture is always a nice thing to have.

dont be dissuaded by the "L" brigade....
 

donkuok

New Member
Oct 11, 2004
902
0
0
44
Perth, Australia
#7
for ur info, tamron 17-35mm does not have 2.8 constant aperture but 2.8-4.
Here's wat i like about this lens:
  • aperture f2.8 at 17mm
  • centre sharpness
  • average color saturation and contrast
  • cheap
Here's wat I dont care:
  • Soft corners
  • Slightly slow focus
  • Noisy when focusing
  • Low light focus hunting
  • A bit short range coz up to 35mm
  • No weather seal
  • QA control ( some may encounter front-focused)
 

May 10, 2006
291
0
0
#8
thanks guys for all the advices and poisoning..

probably got enough $$ for a tamron now..
so still considering if i should save more for a L...

would love a L....cos its a keeper, i am sure..

thinking, thinking...
 

jdredd

New Member
Mar 30, 2006
1,266
0
0
#9
i always find these threads quite amusing..

on a car forum, if someone wants to buy a vios, no one ever comes back to say hey, get a lexus..

but here, its quite common that people will pop up with recommendations for lenses more than double or well over double the price of the price range that the original poster is looking at..

a vios is a good car, so is the lexus.

same for the sigma and 17-40L. dont think you will regret your decision.
 

jeryltan

Senior Member
Jan 5, 2006
3,354
0
0
44
s5.photobucket.com
#10
I would save for the 17-40L rather than having to resell the Tamron at a loss later to get the 17-40L..

cannonball said:
thanks guys for all the advices and poisoning..

probably got enough $$ for a tamron now..
so still considering if i should save more for a L...

would love a L....cos its a keeper, i am sure..

thinking, thinking...
 

jeryltan

Senior Member
Jan 5, 2006
3,354
0
0
44
s5.photobucket.com
#11
Because the price difference between lens is not as great as a car? :dunno: I think if Toyota Mark X is $500 cheaper than Lexus IS250.. Then either Mark X will have ZERO sales, or Lexus IS250 become top selling car in Singapore already, overtake the Altis even.. Everything is relative bro, think about it.. A $500 difference now, is still not much compared to a $30k difference 10yrs later.. Unless you strike Toto :)

Anyway, with car prices so low now, I would recommend pple to get an Altis rather than a Vios..

jdredd said:
i always find these threads quite amusing..

on a car forum, if someone wants to buy a vios, no one ever comes back to say hey, get a lexus..

but here, its quite common that people will pop up with recommendations for lenses more than double or well over double the price of the price range that the original poster is looking at..

a vios is a good car, so is the lexus.

same for the sigma and 17-40L. dont think you will regret your decision.
 

jdredd

New Member
Mar 30, 2006
1,266
0
0
#12
yes of course thats obvious.. but at the end of the day, its still double the price (more so if you consider 16-35)
so just as some people cant stretch to a lexus, so similarly, some people may not be able to stretch, nor might they be minded to stretch to a 17-40...

anyway, choice appears to have been made.. and i dont mean to OT. i just find it amusing that this seems to happen with some regularity.
 

jeryltan

Senior Member
Jan 5, 2006
3,354
0
0
44
s5.photobucket.com
#13
Yes, it does ;) It's called self-justification :bsmilie: or self-medication against BBB virus..

jdredd said:
yes of course thats obvious.. but at the end of the day, its still double the price (more so if you consider 16-35)
so just as some people cant stretch to a lexus, so similarly, some people may not be able to stretch, nor might they be minded to stretch to a 17-40...

anyway, choice appears to have been made.. and i dont mean to OT. i just find it amusing that this seems to happen with some regularity.
 

donkuok

New Member
Oct 11, 2004
902
0
0
44
Perth, Australia
#14
jeryltan said:
I would save for the 17-40L rather than having to resell the Tamron at a loss later to get the 17-40L..
I agree with jerry...go straight to 17-40L. No point buying tamron now and then upgrade 17-40L because I learnt the lesson. Sure rugi a lot.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom