Canon 17-85IS USM vs Canon 28-135 IS USM F3.5 vs Tamron 17-50F2.8 [Archive]

bpopd

Jul 16th, 2007, 01:03 AM

Which one should I pick?

Theres a 28-105 F? for sale in the forums, and the other two are also available on the forums.

I want the one thats the best out of the 3. Though the 28-105USM is half the price of the other two.
__________________

I want advice about the 17-85 lens. And also is it really worth it to get L lenses over these consumer grade lenses?

If I spend say $450 for a used version of this lens, will it regret it down the road?

Is there that big of a difference between this lens and say an L lens?

Cause the only lens I see myself buying from the L line up is the 28-70 F2.8. All the others are not necessary to me.

I only need 17-85 range.

iridescent

Jul 16th, 2007, 01:18 AM

Which one should I pick?

Theres a 28-105 F? for sale in the forums, and the other two are also available on the forums.

I want the one thats the best out of the 3. Though the 28-105USM is half the price of the other two.

No question, 28-135IS. Image quality is amazingly amazingly good... a lot better than even 17-85. The sheer quality alone, over the 17-85 is significant... 17-85 is nothing spectacular at all. 28-135 has almost L qualities, though both my 24-105 and 24-70 outdo it (but also outdo the price). Buy from America, it's cheaper.

AudiDude

Jul 16th, 2007, 01:19 AM

Which one should I pick?

Theres a 28-105 F? for sale in the forums, and the other two are also available on the forums.

I want the one thats the best out of the 3. Though the 28-105USM is half the price of the other two.

Depends on your shooting habits. I wouldn't give up the IS on a cheap slow lens, it would be it's only saving grace. If you think you're going to handhold the 28-105 at full zoom (don't forget to multiply by 1.6) without the IS, good luck. If you think you can live without the wide end of the 17-85, then get the 28-135 IS. I personally shoot a lot @17 mm because I like my shots to convey the feeling of the surroundings, so I remember being there.

The most versatile would be the 17-85 IS especially if you want to shoot indoors. The 28-135 IS has reach, but good luck trying to get a decent portrait "party" shot, unless you want to go into the next room to get far enough away from the subject to get all of them in the frame.

bpopd

Jul 16th, 2007, 01:27 AM

Depends on your shooting habits. I wouldn't give up the IS on a cheap slow lens, it would be it's onlly saving grace. If you think you're going to handhold the 28-105 at full zoom (don't forget to multiply by 1.6) without the IS, good luck. If you think you can live without the wide end of the 17-85, then get the 28-135 IS. I personally shoot a lot @17 mm because I like my shots to convey the feeling of the surroundings, so I remember being there.

The most versatile would be the 17-85 IS especially if you want to shoot indoors. The 28-135 IS has reach, but good luck trying to get a decent portrait "party" shot, unless you want to go into the next room to get far enough away from the subject to get all of them in the frame.

My thoughts exactly. I need the wide end as much as possible. Is the 17-85 that soft? I got use to using the 50mm F1.8, and got a taste of its 2000% magnification sharpness... Disgusting..simply DISGUSTINGLY GOOD.

But yeah, I dont think I'll be spending any more than $500.

I had my mind on the 17-50 Tamron F2.8 but its range isnt really far enough, and it doesnt have IS or USM. Plus I heard back in the day Tamron and Sigma, and all those companies have pretty shoddy QC.

Are there any substitutes for the 17-85IS?

iridescent

Jul 16th, 2007, 01:33 AM

17-55 f/2.8 IS

AudiDude

Jul 16th, 2007, 01:45 AM

My thoughts exactly. I need the wide end as much as possible. Is the 17-85 that soft? I got use to using the 50mm F1.8, and got a taste of its 2000% magnification sharpness... Disgusting..simply DISGUSTINGLY GOOD.

But yeah, I dont think I'll be spending any more than $500.

I had my mind on the 17-50 Tamron F2.8 but its range isnt really far enough, and it doesnt have IS or USM. Plus I heard back in the day Tamron and Sigma, and all those companies have pretty shoddy QC.

Are there any substitutes for the 17-85IS?

The 17-50 Tamron is supposed to be an awesome choice, and I think it would take the clearer shot, no doubt. The 17-85 has barrel distortion at 17mm, which you can correct in Photoshop. The 17-50 can also freeze action, while the 17-85 IS cannot. The IS on the 17-85 is incredible at helping the shaky hands problem though.

I have a 17-85 IS and was looking for another lens and bought a 24-70 2.8 because I already have a 10-20mm Sigma and when I tried the 17-55mm, it didn't seem to have the colour or bokeh and it was an EFS lens. If I decide to go full frame, I don't want to have a lot of money tied up in EFS lenses that don't fit, however I will never give up my 20D. This is also why I was iffy on the 17-50 Tamron BTW.

bpopd

Jul 16th, 2007, 02:17 AM

No question, 28-135IS. Image quality is amazingly amazingly good... a lot better than even 17-85. The sheer quality alone, over the 17-85 is significant... 17-85 is nothing spectacular at all. 28-135 has almost L qualities, though both my 24-105 and 24-70 outdo it (but also outdo the price). Buy from America, it's cheaper.

You make the 28-135IS sound really really good. But I take it you have a lens that has wideangle, or you are using a full frame cam?

magical

Jul 16th, 2007, 04:09 AM

tamron 28-75 or 17-50 are awesome lenses for the price, and personally I wouldn't get anything non-L except the primes and maybe the 17-55 f2.8...

even tho your lens has is, there still is no replacement for a low f rating ...

KorruptioN

Jul 16th, 2007, 06:58 AM

You make the 28-135IS sound really really good.

Yeah... from seeing some results, it is only a *good* general-purpose full-frame lens. I would go with the Tamron 17-50mm. If you have any qualms about 3rd-party build quality, buy locally.

klam

Jul 16th, 2007, 09:49 AM

The 17-85mm has the better focal length range if you are shooting with a cropped sensor body (i.e. Rebel/20D/30D). I believe that the 17-85mm IS and 28-135mm IS are about equivalent in terms of image quality. Go with the one that has better focal lengths. With that being said, while none of these lenses are best in class, they are excellent starter lenses. The only other suggestion would be to go with the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 which is reported to be really nice and is about on par with the two above lenses in cost.

hytong

Jul 16th, 2007, 11:07 AM

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/10d300dlenses.html
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/wide-angle-lenses.html

bpopd

Jul 16th, 2007, 03:48 PM

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/10d300dlenses.html
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/wide-angle-lenses.html

Thanks for the links, they were quite helpful.

I am new to photography, and IS is a great feature. I dont know what to pick.

The sharper Tamron 17-50 with the motion stopping fixed F2.8 or the Canon 17-85 with superior telephoto, and the 3 stop savings IS.

Both have their own merits...decisions decisions.

Is it more important for you to be able to stop motion, or for you to have a longer reach? I think any and all telephoto lengths require IS if hand held.

However, I like taking photos of people, and IS wont help me if I have a crowd of moving people right?

iridescent

Jul 16th, 2007, 06:22 PM

You make the 28-135IS sound really really good. But I take it you have a lens that has wideangle, or you are using a full frame cam?

I used to have it a long time ago. Many people have this lens and are quite happy with it.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/B00006I53S/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_top/103-7155557-1186248?ie=UTF8&n=502394&s=photo#customerReviews
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_28135_35

This is pretty much the closest to 24-70 / 24-105 you will get without breaking the bank. Better than 17-85, easily.

Yes obviously you lose the wide, but you can use your standard kit lens or get an ultrawide. I have a Sigma 12-24mm that works on fullframe as well, which I use... and I also use a Canon 16-35mm.

You've obviously figured out that there are many compromises you have to make when you have a small budget... you have to sacrifice somewhere. With this, you sacrifice wide angle (just pop on your other lens when you need). 28-135 is what I recommend to people who have a budget but still want high quality Canon with USM and IS.

iridescent

Jul 16th, 2007, 06:25 PM

Thanks for the links, they were quite helpful.

I am new to photography, and IS is a great feature. I dont know what to pick.

The sharper Tamron 17-50 with the motion stopping fixed F2.8 or the Canon 17-85 with superior telephoto, and the 3 stop savings IS.

Both have their own merits...decisions decisions.

Is it more important for you to be able to stop motion, or for you to have a longer reach? I think any and all telephoto lengths require IS if hand held.

However, I like taking photos of people, and IS wont help me if I have a crowd of moving people right?

Actually, slow shutter speeds with moving people can give quite a cool effect... put your camera on a tripod and take such a picture. But in any case, even 2.8 aperture won't help you that much. IS is such a useful feature... I can get crisp photos at 1/8 with both 24-105 and 70-200!

bpopd

Jul 16th, 2007, 11:25 PM

Actually, slow shutter speeds with moving people can give quite a cool effect... put your camera on a tripod and take such a picture. But in any case, even 2.8 aperture won't help you that much. IS is such a useful feature... I can get crisp photos at 1/8 with both 24-105 and 70-200!

You've sold me on the 28-135IS, if the lens quality is that good, almost reaching L quality...drools. But might I ask have you had a 17-85IS?
Cause to me the thought of changing lenses is generally a bad thing when it comes to traveling and walking.

Anyone know where I can rent a 28-135IS and a 17-85IS so i can compare them myself?

klam

Jul 17th, 2007, 12:39 AM

For all intensive purposes, the image quality of the 28-135mm and 17-85mm are the same. The 17-85mm is just formatted for a crop sensor (i.e. 17-85 x 1.6 = 28-135) but they are nearly identical lenses. The only way I can see the 28-135mm being better than the 17-85mm is because it is a film lens, it has a larger image circle than your Rebel XTI sensor, so you are utilizing the sweet spot of the lens only and not the edge where lenses reveal their weakness most easily. However, 28mm is a 45mm FOV on a Rebel XTI. So take that into consideration. Neither lens is near L quality.

I would recommend highly a look at the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. Whenever given the choice, faster glass is preferable for a multitude of reasons.

klam

Jul 17th, 2007, 12:42 AM

Here is a direct comparison between the 17-85mm and 28-135mm.

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/178528135

JuNGleR72

Jul 17th, 2007, 02:35 AM

[/QUOTE]Anyone know where I can rent a 28-135IS and a 17-85IS so i can compare them myself?[/QUOTE]

I would like to know if their is a place that rents out lenses too.

Jul 17th, 2007, 05:31 AM

If it does help you in making your decisions, these are a few samples from my 28-135mm on XTi, unedited (other than resized), taken handheld without tripod:
ISO200, 1/30, F4.5, IS on, 50mm
http://www.chrisyiu.com/images_personal/DSLR/1.JPG
ISO800, 1/13, F4.0, IS on, 38mm
http://www.chrisyiu.com/images_personal/DSLR/2.JPG
ISO800, 1/8, F5.0, IS on, 80mm
http://www.chrisyiu.com/images_personal/DSLR/3.JPG
ISO100, 1/60, F3.5, IS on, 28mm
http://www.chrisyiu.com/images_personal/DSLR/4.JPG
ISO400, 1/25, F8.0, IS on, 135mm
http://www.chrisyiu.com/images_personal/DSLR/6.JPG
ISO100, 1/40, F3.5, IS on, 28mm
http://www.chrisyiu.com/images_personal/DSLR/7.JPG

In comparison with the kit lens in terms of the size: (I was a bit surprised of how big it is when i first saw it)
http://www.chrisyiu.com/images_personal/DSLR/3lenses.JPG

It also weights a lot heavier.

Let me know if I can be of help in anyway (other than giving my lens to you :)). I am currently hunting for a 17-85 sorta because I can make use of the wider end more than the longer end on the 28-135.

Cheers.

KorruptioN

Jul 17th, 2007, 07:00 AM

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1785_456_is/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_28135_3556_is/index.htm

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

tridium

Jul 17th, 2007, 08:39 AM

Anyone know where I can rent a 28-135IS and a 17-85IS so i can compare them myself?

I would like to know if their is a place that rents out lenses too.

Vistek (www.vistek.ca) has the widest selection of the two renters I know of. Their prices are reasonable too (they'll charge you a weekend rate that's similar to one weekday, Friday to Monday rent). The other option I know of is Henrys (http://www.henrys.com/rentals/#lenses) though their selection seems to be limited to only Sigma lenses. Pity, they don't even have a Bigma for rent. :P

bpopd

Jul 17th, 2007, 12:21 PM

If it does help you in making your decisions, these are a few samples from my 28-135mm on XTi, unedited (other than resized), taken handheld without tripod:

It also weights a lot heavier.

Let me know if I can be of help in anyway (other than giving my lens to you :)). I am currently hunting for a 17-85 sorta because I can make use of the wider end more than the longer end on the 28-135.

Cheers.

Thanks cy, Nice photos btw. I'm in between on the Canon 17-85IS and the Tamron 17-50 F2.8. I read the reviews and the CA(chromatic abberation) on the 17-85IS is quite noticeable. Im leaning towards the Tamron 17-50 F2.8, but the IS feature is seductive.

KorruptioN

Jul 17th, 2007, 12:44 PM

Im leaning towards the Tamron 17-50 F2.8, but the IS feature is seductive.

f/4-5.6 FTL

iridescent

Jul 17th, 2007, 01:00 PM

Here is a direct comparison between the 17-85mm and 28-135mm.

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/178528135

Form factor similar, optics different.

imnew

Jul 17th, 2007, 04:28 PM

So which one is good?? LOL...

I'm thinking of getting one from B&H in NYC.... Don't want to spend more than 500.00.....

Just want a good all round lens for my xti too....

mavvee

Jul 18th, 2007, 12:46 AM

So which one is good?? LOL...

I'm thinking of getting one from B&H in NYC.... Don't want to spend more than 500.00.....

Just want a good all round lens for my xti too....

Hey imnew are you driving down to B&H in NYC to get your lens? I'm thinking of getting either the Tammy 17-50mm or 70-200/4L from B&H. Maybe we can arrange to have a group shipping! :lol:

magical

Jul 18th, 2007, 04:21 AM

Hey imnew are you driving down to B&H in NYC to get your lens? I'm thinking of getting either the Tammy 17-50mm or 70-200/4L from B&H. Maybe we can arrange to have a group shipping! :lol:

if yer getting the 70-200 f/4 which is a SWEET lens, make sure you get the new IS model! ...

the 2.8 is better but a lot more money and quality wise, yes that f/stop would help in some situations, the price is nearly double, and the f4 with IS is a SWEET SWEET lens aswell.. and a lot lighter, something you can use for a walk around, although I use my 100-400L as a walk around and have no issues but my wife doesn't like hand holding it for very long...

Jul 18th, 2007, 06:46 AM

if yer getting the 70-200 f/4 which is a SWEET lens, make sure you get the new IS model! ...

the 2.8 is better but a lot more money and quality wise, yes that f/stop would help in some situations, the price is nearly double, and the f4 with IS is a SWEET SWEET lens aswell.. and a lot lighter, something you can use for a walk around, although I use my 100-400L as a walk around and have no issues but my wife doesn't like hand holding it for very long...

There are reports saying the F2.8 is not as Sharp as the F4, though.

I would have to think that except for side by side comparison, the F2.8 is still sharp as a cutter. With a tiny touch up with DPP, I am very positive that it can be fixed easily - if that statement was true.

magical

Jul 18th, 2007, 07:29 AM

There are reports saying the F2.8 is not as Sharp as the F4, though.

I would have to think that except for side by side comparison, the F2.8 is still sharp as a cutter. With a tiny touch up with DPP, I am very positive that it can be fixed easily - if that statement was true.

Lets look at it in terms of USD, the f2.8 is $700 more than the f4.0... from most reviews, they will say its sharper, I have personally owned the F4.0 non IS model, and the quality of the pictures were STUNNING... how much more sharp, that is to be determined, I mean up intil now the 70-200 f/4l non is was considered canons best L for the price, add IS and its a Steal, not to mention 1.5LB lighter than the 2.8 counterpart... although myself I dont mind my long lens that is around the same weight, it still kinda sucks lugging it around, but I have learned to deal with it ... and wouldn't consider either tho a great choice for a walk around lens (im comparing a f2.8 70-200 or my 100-400)... but at only 1.7LB this lens is fine for walking around with, has a excellent focal range, internal focusing, is, and is known for EXCEPTIONAL optics... No tripod collar that comes standard, and if you want one get the black one as its cheaper, but its debaeable as to wether or not you'd actually need one, the camera technically could handle the lens without one but I'd probably want one as its right on the verge ...

$1000 or $1700 either way you're getting a top grade zoom lens and both will impress you. one will leave you more money in your wallet, both are great lenses, I really dont think there is a wrong decison either way... obviously the faster lens will do better under certain circumstances, probably not many you will ever need, the rest comes down to how much you will use it and how much you like lugging around that bigger lens!

hytong

Jul 18th, 2007, 08:55 AM

A good tripod collar will place the foot right below the centre of gravity of the whole setup resulting better damping when the mirror/shutter slaps (shorter moment arm), it will also give you better handling since the setup is naturally balanced with minimal effort from the head. The longer and heavier the lens the more pronounced this is.

bpopd

Jul 18th, 2007, 08:08 PM

Which one do you guys rather have?

IS or big APERTURE?

I have tried the 50mm F1.8 II, Im new to photography so I am not highly skilled in the art of controlling parameters. I would have to say I found it hard to stabilize, and shoot with the 50mm F1.8, but it allowed more light in so the shots were well exposed.

I tried using 1 IS lens, the 75-300IS. Took 1 photo with it...quite literally 1... so I did not get the full chance of experiencing IS, but I felt like I was a sniper with some form of aim correction. It compensated for my unstable movements to an extent, which made it really quite a good feature.

Both are great, but i found that even with a big aperture, i could not successfully utilize it to maximize its potential and stabilize my hands to get a sharp image. For me to develop stable hands will take training, but in this circumstance, what would be ideal for me as a beginner?

KorruptioN

Jul 18th, 2007, 08:17 PM

Me? Big aperture.

Jul 18th, 2007, 11:17 PM

I love IS myself, because the objects and the lighting condition that I shoot in doesn't require the 2.8. I often stop down a bit just to get a sharper image anyways if possible (when lighting condition allows).

Although, IS cannot replace fast aperture, especially moving object. It does help in low light condition, and helps those shaky photographers. However fast aperture will be able to compensate the IS in some way that you are able to use a bit faster shutter to avoid the shutter movement, plus it's capable of taking moving objects.

That's just how i think, correct me if i am wrong.

bpopd

Jul 20th, 2007, 06:04 PM

Well today I got a chance to play with the 17-85IS lens. Wow what a difference in quality compared to the kit lens. *then again you are paying $500-$700 for a lens alone*. But damn I like how weighty, and solid it feels, it balances the Rebel so well.

In terms of hand holding it, and taking shots with IS on... I'm not too sure if it really made a difference for me. Then again I only got to try it out at Best Buy, and the damn camera was attached to a friggin spiral wire, and the kit lens was hanging off a cable connected to the camera while I was hand holding the rebel with 17-85IS on. 17-85 is a nice range to use. Very versatile.

The Tamrons 17-50 range seem too short. I prefer a longer range.

I guess the Canon's IS system will save some photos for me due to my shaky shutter happy fingers.

Optics wise, the tamron is superior. Some say its IQ is at the level of L lenses.
I'll have to see it to believe it. And again another load of inconclusive crap that I've written.

bpopd

Jul 20th, 2007, 06:22 PM

goofball

Jul 20th, 2007, 07:18 PM

At the end of the day.

I want my pictures to be sharp.

BIG APERTURE is what I've decided. No matter how it is, I rather have well exposed sharp images with more IQ, than round of the mill image sharpness.

I am humbled by the great group of photog's here, and seriously thank you for all your advice and input.

Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD is the winner.

Just make sure you get a good copy with no focus issues, no issues with overexposure in fill-flash mode.

Use this to test for focus accuracy.

http://www.focustestchart.com/chart.html

While I don't normally advocate shooting things like this, it does give you an idea of the focus accuracy as well as other things. I used this when testing my 17-50 Tamron and it was focusing ok but way way too soft at f/2.8 to be worth shooting with and even at f/5.6 compared to my other lenses at the same focal length.

Good luck, enjoy your lens, you made the right choice.

Jul 20th, 2007, 08:03 PM

At the end of the day.

I want my pictures to be sharp.

BIG APERTURE is what I've decided. No matter how it is, I rather have well exposed sharp images with more IQ, than round of the mill image sharpness.

I am humbled by the great group of photog's here, and seriously thank you for all your advice and input.

Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD is the winner.

Wide aperture doesn't mean sharp.

Alot of the lenses need to step down a bit to get a very sharp image. I personally would go with the 17-85 IS, for the IS, and for the resale value. Keep in mind for the IS on these lenses, you might need to hold the focus for 0.5 - 1 sec for it to be in full effect.

KorruptioN

Jul 20th, 2007, 08:09 PM

Wide aperture doesn't mean sharp.

Alot of the lenses need to step down a bit to get a very sharp image. I personally would go with the 17-85 IS, for the IS, and for the resale value. Keep in mind for the IS on these lenses, you might need to hold the focus for 0.5 - 1 sec for it to be in full effect.

Yeah, but the 17-85IS will also likely need to be stopped down to approximately f/8 in order to achieve maximum sharpness. The Tamron has more headroom, and already at f/4, you're getting a noticeable increase in overall sharpness. f/4 on the 17-85IS would be completely wide open. USM is nice though.

df329

Jul 20th, 2007, 08:16 PM

17-50 by far the best lens in that group... 2.8 FTW :lol:

hytong

Jul 20th, 2007, 09:28 PM

almost all lens benefit from stopping down a stop or two from max (reduced spherical aberration, super teles are exceptions) just don't go too far as to use f/32 on 35mm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/diffraction.htm

at the end, it is the "look" that you should be after rather than technical details

Desolatax

Jul 21st, 2007, 01:22 AM

Trust me, L glass is worth every penny. I absolutely love my 24-105L IS USM lens, awesome lens for daily shooting, a tad bit heavy, but paired with my 10-22 (so much wide angle goodness, you can almost see your shoulders), I don't need any other lens unless I need the extra telephoto, I'll bring my 70-200/2.8L.

I completely recommend saving a bit more cash and getting a 24-105L from the states, you'll save a bit.

Also, what camera are you using?

df329

Jul 21st, 2007, 01:29 AM

hytong

Jul 21st, 2007, 10:54 AM

no, no, get Carl Zeiss and use an adapter, they have a different balance of color reproduction, sharpness and aberration than Japanese lens. Weight problem? Hire an assistant.

Desolatax

Jul 21st, 2007, 01:40 PM

:arrowu: good but expensive advice

i have 10-22 / 24-70 / 70-200 for the perfect mix :D

Very expensive indeed, but once you have the gear, it makes it all worth it.

bpopd

Jul 23rd, 2007, 02:59 PM

Very expensive indeed, but once you have the gear, it makes it all worth it.

i understand what you mean

imnew

Jul 23rd, 2007, 04:46 PM

bpopd

Jul 24th, 2007, 12:36 PM

You might want to buy the tamron from canada.

I've heard from rollee that tamrons distributed in canada are Made in Japan.
Whereas Tamrons distributed in USA, are Made in China.

KorruptioN

Jul 24th, 2007, 12:39 PM

You might want to buy the tamron from canada.

I've heard from rollee that tamrons distributed in canada are Made in Japan.
Whereas Tamrons distributed in USA, are Made in China.

Depends on the distributor and depends on the batch of stock that they may have at that moment.

bpopd

Jul 25th, 2007, 11:58 AM

Depends on the distributor and depends on the batch of stock that they may have at that moment.

DAMN!!!!! Korruption by any chance does blacks carry tamron? ***plz hook me up****

sapiendut

Jul 25th, 2007, 01:51 PM

why decide between IS vs large aperture vs sharpness? Get all of them in one lens: Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

Here are some shots taken with it (http://s126.photobucket.com/albums/p119/david_susilo/Paul-n-Yu%20Restaurant/?action=view&current=76d60e5c.jpg&slideshow=true&interval=4). Available light only, no post processing, JPEG right out of my 30D.

KorruptioN

Jul 25th, 2007, 02:26 PM

DAMN!!!!! Korruption by any chance does blacks carry tamron? ***plz hook me up****

My location doesn't carry lenses, I can't find any Tamron lenses on the website either, so it's possible Blacks doesn't carry Tamron to begin with.

why decide between IS vs large aperture vs sharpness? Get all of them in one lens: Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

Here are some shots taken with it (http://s126.photobucket.com/albums/p119/david_susilo/Paul-n-Yu%20Restaurant/?action=view&current=76d60e5c.jpg&slideshow=true&interval=4). Available light only, no post processing, JPEG right out of my 30D.

It is a $1300 lens... and not quite L quality at that.

sapiendut

Jul 25th, 2007, 03:54 PM

It is a $1300 lens... and not quite L quality at that.

not quite L quality? ROTFLMAO!

df329

Jul 25th, 2007, 04:12 PM

the canon 17-55 is L quality... it just doesn't have an L since it's EF-S

like the 10-22

KorruptioN

Jul 25th, 2007, 04:25 PM

not quite L quality? ROTFLMAO!

What? The 17-55mm 2.8 IS is made of mostly durable polycarbonate, a comparable L-grade lens will be made of magnesium alloy.

klam

Jul 25th, 2007, 06:10 PM

Optically the 10-22mm and 17-55mm EF-S lenses are on par with other L zooms. Superb image quality. However, build quality is lower and of course it doesn't fit non-cropped sensor cameras or film cameras.

sapiendut

Jul 25th, 2007, 10:30 PM

What? The 17-55mm 2.8 IS is made of mostly durable polycarbonate, a comparable L-grade lens will be made of magnesium alloy.

Spoken like a true salesperson and not of a photographer. Clearly you've never compared an actual L lens to this lens in an A/B comparison in a controlled situation.

bpopd

Jul 26th, 2007, 01:25 AM

AudiDude

Jul 26th, 2007, 03:26 AM

I cant afford the EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS!!! $1300 is way off my budget.

My plan is to buy the Tamron 17-50 F2.8, and never buy another lens for my camera.

I love the idea of how point and shoot cameras come as a package. Body and lens...all in one for 1 price. Lol thats what Im trying to achieve here. A DSLR that is good at almost everything. And with the Tamron 17-50...it will complete my camera needs. (flash might be next, but i doubt it)

Lens wise I dont see a point to get anything crazier. I take pictures of people 100% of the time. So I will never need a long range zoom lenses.

Hopefully in the future canon will make a sturdier, weather proof version of the Rebel. Hopefully.

It won't take too long for you to realize that your plan will not work. You need more than one lens, unless you are just going to take the same shot over and over again.

Pretty soon you will realize that you'd rather kill your camera and keep your lenses. This is why I will warn you to go easy on spending on EF-S lenses or the like (the 17-50 2.8 is like an EF-S lens and will not work on some of the Canon models).

Wait until you want those clear, saturated shots and realize you need a circular polarizing filter or you will NEVER get that shot. I love my 20D, but if it comes down to it, I'd rather drop that than my 24-70 2.8, it would be cheaper to replace, especially with a $230 Circular polarizing filter on the lens.

If you've seen the Matrix, this is the point where you say "Why, Oh why, didn't I take the blue pill". Serously, you've just taken your first hit of camera "crack".:lol:

sapiendut

Jul 26th, 2007, 08:26 AM

My plan is to buy the Tamron 17-50 F2.8,

There is this camera place that I've been going to and buying all my gears from for the past several years. It's located in Market Village. The name is Amazing Photo (www.amazingphoto.ca). I don't work there although I hang out at that place often. :lol: IIRC they carry Tamron. They usually have better price than Aden, Vistek, Henry's and Downtown Camera (that's why I go there for all my camera stuff, both still and video)

KorruptioN

Jul 26th, 2007, 08:45 AM

Spoken like a true salesperson and not of a photographer. Clearly you've never compared an actual L lens to this lens in an A/B comparison in a controlled situation.

I have. In this situation, the next closest lens would be the 17-40L. It's a lot bigger, heavier, and weather/dust-sealed. The 17-55 f2.8 IS is quite large, but it is not sealed.

sapiendut

Jul 26th, 2007, 09:11 AM

I have. In this situation, the next closest lens would be the 17-40L. It's a lot bigger, heavier, and weather/dust-sealed. The 17-55 f2.8 IS is quite large, but it is not sealed.

I own a 17-40 (now just sitting at a corner somewhere after buying the 17-55)
17-40 is less versatile (range-wise) than the 17-55
17-40 is f/4
17-40 doesn't have IS
I've used 17-55 in various construction are (read: loads of dust flying around) without a problem
I've used the 17-55in varying drizzles and/or light shower without a problem.

Besides,
1. the crop sensor bodies are not sealed anyway, so one should worry more about that.
2. L series does NOT equal to weather sealing.

bpopd

Jul 26th, 2007, 01:16 PM

this blue pill tastes great! But I never realized that the tamron is limited to certain EF-S bodies.

Damn you are right. I would actually buy a polarizing filter down the road., so thats how you do those saturated shots....

Okay fine, I'll say that if I ever spend money again on lenses. It'll have to be when I buy a 5D, or 1D.
So basically my plan wont work...at all..

If I want my lenses to work down the road, I need to spend money on a 10-22($799), 24-70($1299), 70-300F4L ($799)? or be cheap and get an EF mount 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS($599)

But, the tamron is such an excellent lens. And I really dont forsee myself changing cameras for as long as my canon stays alive.

It won't take too long for you to realize that your plan will not work. You need more than one lens, unless you are just going to take the same shot over and over again.

Pretty soon you will realize that you'd rather kill your camera and keep your lenses. This is why I will warn you to go easy on spending on EF-S lenses or the like (the 17-50 2.8 is like an EF-S lens and will not work on some of the Canon models).

Wait until you want those clear, saturated shots and realize you need a circular polarizing filter or you will NEVER get that shot. I love my 20D, but if it comes down to it, I'd rather drop that than my 24-70 2.8, it would be cheaper to replace, especially with a $230 Circular polarizing filter on the lens.

If you've seen the Matrix, this is the point where you say "Why, Oh why, didn't I take the blue pill". Serously, you've just taken your first hit of camera "crack".:lol:

bpopd

Jul 26th, 2007, 01:17 PM

I really never knew the points you stated below. Thanks for the tips! I'll check out amazingcamera!

I own a 17-40 (now just sitting at a corner somewhere after buying the 17-55)
17-40 is less versatile (range-wise) than the 17-55
17-40 is f/4
17-40 doesn't have IS
I've used 17-55 in various construction are (read: loads of dust flying around) without a problem
I've used the 17-55in varying drizzles and/or light shower without a problem.

Besides,
1. the crop sensor bodies are not sealed anyway, so one should worry more about that.
2. L series does NOT equal to weather sealing.

hagbard

Jul 26th, 2007, 03:49 PM

sapiendut

Jul 26th, 2007, 05:46 PM

Given my experience with Canon's repair depot, I'd recommend anything but Canon lenses. But I have heard really good things about that Tamron 17-50, and if I hadn't sold my 20D (and all my other Canon stuff) I'd by this lens for it.

I guess you've never experienced the (lack of) service from Olympus and Sigma :D Canon is pale in comparison :razz:

bpopd

Jul 26th, 2007, 11:48 PM

I guess you've never experienced the (lack of) service from Olympus and Sigma :D Canon is pale in comparison :razz:

I know that Nikon has 2yrs warranty instead of 1yr like canon, and everyone else.

How is nikon?
I may consider switching to Nikon in the future.

I was actually originally a Nikon SLR user. I may go back to Nikon.

sapiendut

Jul 27th, 2007, 12:07 AM

I know that Nikon has 2yrs warranty instead of 1yr like canon, and everyone else.

How is nikon?
I may consider switching to Nikon in the future.

I was actually originally a Nikon SLR user. I may go back to Nikon.

I personally never had anything other than my point and shoot needed to be repaired (touch wood)... and that's after using Canon for more than 12 years.

Fuji, well... every single one is broken at around 12 month mark. Olympus auto focus is so slow I literally almost slam my Olympus dSLR to the ground since I've missed so many low-light shots.

Nikon, they are (more than) decent but I don't like their High ISO capability. My students use them so I can always monitor their progress in High ISO area and they are still about half to one-stop worse than Canon. Also Nikon lenses are higher in contrast that Canon. I personally don't like that. I can push the contrast higher from my Canon to make it look like Nikon (using Photoshop) but I can't do the reverse making Nikon look like Canon, so to me that's another plus for Canon.

On the other hand, although it's very good, I can't use Canon XT/XTi, they are far too small.

If my option is between Canon XT/XTi vs Nikon D40x or D80s, I'll take the Nikon just for the fact that I can actually hold the camera steadily. But if I have to choose between any of the Nikon to 30D, I'll take the 30D hands down. Again, it's a personal preference.

PS: I also have several Nikon point and shoots, never had a single problem with any of them and the oldest of them all is about 6 years old.

oh, Amazing Photo is also a Nikon authorized dealer. The sell a lot of 18-200VR lens coupled with D40X and D80s

bpopd

Jul 27th, 2007, 01:42 AM

I personally never had anything other than my point and shoot needed to be repaired (touch wood)... and that's after using Canon for more than 12 years.

Fuji, well... every single one is broken at around 12 month mark. Olympus auto focus is so slow I literally almost slam my Olympus dSLR to the ground since I've missed so many low-light shots.

Nikon, they are (more than) decent but I don't like their High ISO capability. My students use them so I can always monitor their progress in High ISO area and they are still about half to one-stop worse than Canon. Also Nikon lenses are higher in contrast that Canon. I personally don't like that. I can push the contrast higher from my Canon to make it look like Nikon (using Photoshop) but I can't do the reverse making Nikon look like Canon, so to me that's another plus for Canon.

On the other hand, although it's very good, I can't use Canon XT/XTi, they are far too small.

If my option is between Canon XT/XTi vs Nikon D40x or D80s, I'll take the Nikon just for the fact that I can actually hold the camera steadily. But if I have to choose between any of the Nikon to 30D, I'll take the 30D hands down. Again, it's a personal preference.

PS: I also have several Nikon point and shoots, never had a single problem with any of them and the oldest of them all is about 6 years old.

oh, Amazing Photo is also a Nikon authorized dealer. The sell a lot of 18-200VR lens coupled with D40X and D80s

You see, thats exactly the problem I have with my XTi. I can't take steady shots with it cause I find it a wee bit too small for my hands. At the same time I love canon's high ISO quality. Theres so little noise that its almost unnoticeable. I even tried the battery grip, but it just makes the camera feel awkward for horizontal shots (great for vertical shots).

The sole reason why I'd go with a nikon is cause of the ergonomics. If canon could get it right...then, the Rebel would sell so well.

The 30D is heavy, but it gives you a nice grip. The ergonomic, and material quality of the 30D is available on Nikons entry level cameras, which I despise.
At the same time, I should stop complaining and just go out and buy a 30D. Too bad money doesn't grow from trees.

sapiendut

Jul 27th, 2007, 09:34 AM

The 30D is heavy, but it gives you a nice grip. The ergonomic, and material quality of the 30D is available on Nikons entry level cameras, which I despise.
At the same time, I should stop complaining and just go out and buy a 30D. Too bad money doesn't grow from trees.

All in all, the 30D is not that much more expensive than the Rebel XTi. My (flawed) logic is this: If I use XTi, I will then absolutely need to use the grip, which makes the total purchase about $1050. However, should I choose a 30D, the grip usage is an option to me therefore the total purchase price on the 30D is only $1300 minus another $150 rebate (if purchased before July 31st).

Thus making the entry fee on the 30D only $100 more than the XTi.

KorruptioN

Jul 27th, 2007, 09:37 AM

sapiendut

Jul 27th, 2007, 09:53 AM

The 400D leaves too much blotchy colour noise behind. I don't like it. Again, people are still attached to the notion that Canon's noise reduction algorithms are better "just because". I still currently shoot film, so film-grain is attractive to me.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page18.asp

on the grey and black you can see the Canon is more blotchy but more often than not you'll take a pic of actual objects and just like the stamp picture (the green head shot) I still personally like the Canon end result better.

Although I should agree with you that film grain is attractive... just not digital grain.

bpopd

Jul 27th, 2007, 11:52 AM

All in all, the 30D is not that much more expensive than the Rebel XTi. My (flawed) logic is this: If I use XTi, I will then absolutely need to use the grip, which makes the total purchase about $1050. However, should I choose a 30D, the grip usage is an option to me therefore the total purchase price on the 30D is only $1300 minus another $150 rebate (if purchased before July 31st).

Thus making the entry fee on the 30D only $100 more than the XTi.

Well I guess my logic is flawed as well. Cause I had the battery grip, and it wasnt a good as you think. It increased the weight to more than a 30D, and still the side grip was just too small for my hands to grasp.

Also I bought my camera when sears had a special for $849 + tax for XTI kit. So it doesnt apply to me.

I would however spend some time and money to upgrade to a 30D.

bpopd

Aug 8th, 2007, 03:34 PM

Just purchased the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, and I am in love with it.

Focus speed is fast, you can focus in close proximity to the object in front of you with pinpoint precision.

The lens itself is Made in JAPAN. Its nice and light compared to L lenses, but has a good hefty feel to it. It balances the 30D, and the rebel body very well. The focus motor is loud compared to USM equipped lenses, but it sounds right.

Hand held shooting is nice. More info to come as I get to use it more.

Laserheart

Aug 17th, 2007, 03:04 AM

What's the best site for Lens reviews? I am looking for an inexpensive telephoto for my XTi and want to make sure I know all of the options...

klam

Aug 17th, 2007, 03:29 AM

http://www.photozone.de
http://www.the-digital-picture.com
http://www.pbase.com/lwestfall/lens_tests
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/index.htm
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests

Laserheart

Aug 17th, 2007, 03:41 AM

Thanks!

bpopd

Aug 17th, 2007, 06:08 PM

One gripe:

The 17-50F2.8 Tamron, is not sharper than my 50 f1.8 II that I sold to Ak-47.

My 50 F1.8II was a freaking pixel peeping monster... you could take a huge photo of someone and zoom right down to their pores and see if they have a blackhead.

The 17-50F2.8 on the other hand doesnt have that microscopic ability. Nor the overal sharpness compared to the 50 f1.8 prime lens.

Though it may be unfair to compare a prime and a zoom lens, I just wanted to outline this finding.

Primes are definitely sharper.

EDITING NOTE:
What I said above is lacking..., The reason for the lack of sharpness is cause I didn't use the proper settings for taking the photo. Im still an amateur at photography. So sorry for misleading anyone here.