Canon vs Tamron

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David Stephen Kalonick on February 1, 2010 at 11:56am

Couple options First link is way sharper than any zoom wide angle, and this is my suggestion. The second link my buddy owns and he says it's pretty sharp, and will get the job done, and is cheaper, plus gets better reviews in most cases than the tamron.

Hope that helps,
David

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00009R6WN/ref=sr_1_olp_1?ie...

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-10-20mm-4-5-6-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0007U...

Permalink Reply by Monica Oppold on February 1, 2010 at 2:02pm

Thank you for the link. I will definitely have to check out these two options.

Permalink Reply by Deborah Marie Butcher on February 1, 2010 at 12:10pm

I cannot believe what you are saying. I have 2 older models of that camera and they are wonderful even in low light. Canon makes very good lenses. Your camera has a flash built in anyway so you really wouldn't need to attach a flash, I don't think. What do you have it set on? I never use flash with any of my cameras. I think you may want to check your settings. The Canon brand is top of the line. Why would you want Tamron to replace Canon.

Permalink Reply by Bob Wood on February 1, 2010 at 12:16pm

I agree with Deborah. I have an XSi myself. Fstop, shutter speed, ISO? Check those first.

I do agree that Canon has superior lens, but they are overpriced. I have five Canon lenses and one Sigma. Sigma does offer quality at a lower price, but I would do as Deborah suggested before spending any money.

Permalink Reply by Monica Oppold on February 1, 2010 at 2:16pm

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE my Canon...it's just the two lenses that I received in my package don't cut it for me. I have played around with my f stops and my ISO (a little bit with my shutter speed) but the pictures just aren't coming out like I would like them to. I really hate to bump up my ISO too much because I don't want "noisey" pictures. It's just really hard to go from my prime 50mm with an f stop of 1.4 to my 18-55mm with an f stop range of f 3.5-5.6. I would LOVE to be able to purchase the Canon 24-70mm f 2.8L (where the f 2.8 goes through out the focal range), but money's an issue. I'm just asking for an alternative and I've been reading great reviews about Tamron. If you have any other suggestions I'm more than willing to listen. Thank you.

Permalink Reply by Joe Konz on February 1, 2010 at 12:52pm

I've been using a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 as my walk-around lens on both a 30D and 7D for more than two years, Monica, and I like it a lot. It's far more affordable ($430 vs. $1300) than the Canon L series equivalent, the 24-70mm, and for $1300, you'd think Canon would give you IS, but it doesn't. Canon die-hards will tell you that paying $900 extra is nothing considering the top-quality glass you're getting, but when I went shopping for this lens, I was in much the same boat as you. I didn't have the cash to spring for an L series lens. I did my research, found a lot of fans (and very supportive online reviews) of the Tamron, and my experience with it now puts me among that vocal group. I feel that if my Tamron is anyway inferior to the Canon L equivalent, it isn't by much.

Now, because the 28-75 is on a crop-factor body (as it would be on yours), its effective focal range is actually 42-110, or something like that. So to cover myself on the short end, I ended up springing for a Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 ultra wide angle, a pretty new upgrade to Sigma's older 10-20mm f/4-5.6. It's not quite a 2.8, but better than the 4-5.6. So far, I've really liked what the Sigma has given me. It cost me a little less than $650.

So in summary, I managed to get two good lenses (the Sigma for $650 and the Tamron for $380, which was the sale price at the time I bought it. The Tamron currently retails for $425) with less than it would have cost me for the single L series 24-70 ($1300+). Canon makes a 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 lens, by the way, and it's gotten very good reviews, but it retails for $725, so if you sprung the extra $75 to get that lens instead of the Sigma, you wouldn't t have the constant f.3.5, it's not L series glass and it doesn't have IS.

Permalink Reply by Monica Oppold on February 1, 2010 at 2:21pm

Joe, thank you so much for your reply. It has been very, very helpful. You have given me plenty of options and I guess I have some more homework to do before committing to one lens or the other. I was just wondering what you would recommend for the other end of the spectrum (my 55-250mm lens)?

Permalink Reply by Monica Oppold on February 1, 2010 at 2:29pm

Thank you so much. This link is very helpful.

Permalink Reply by Peter Salas on February 1, 2010 at 3:55pm

Hmmm...well it depends on what focal length you want, but it sounds to me you want a zoom around the range of a 17-50mm. This is my sweet spot for indoor shots and provides a lot of flexibility with some IQ loss; essentially, you're not going to beat the 50mm f/1.4 in IQ and speed...it's really that good, but at the loss of flexibility.

With that in mind, let's get to the point! Since you're shooting indoors, you'll want a fast lens (no slower than a f/2.8) and when considering a zoom, you'll want a static aperture throughout the entire zoom range so that you don't lose any stops when you need to zoom in or out.

My recommended lenses would be the following:

• Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS - ~$1,000 on Amazon
• Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 - ~$500 on Amazon
• Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L - $1,300 on Amazon

I personally own the Tamron 17-50mm and the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L. The image quality of the L series lens is phenomenal and a pretty decent zoom. The brother to this lens is the 24-105mm f/4.0 IS; many people will say that this is an excellent lens as well (around the same price) and IS helps with the fact it's slower than the 24-70mm. However, the 24-70mm is a tad sharper! The negative to this lens is the fact that on a 1.6 crop body, a 24mm effectively becomes a 38.4mm; still better than a 50mm which is the equivalent of an 80mm. This may not be a problem as long as you're not trying to do large group shots of more than 4-6 people in a tight space! Lastly, it's insanely heavy (about 2 lbs)!

For an even wider view, I switch to my 17-50mm Tamron. An excellent lens for the "cheap" price of $500 (it's also lighter than the 24-70mm). IQ wise there is no comparison to an L lens, but it's not bad with good light. The negatives are the following for this lens and should be considered of course:

• Slow (and loud) focusing especially in low-light. You'll definitely hear the electronic motor working
• It's not a USM and does not offer FTM (full-time-manual)
• Has trouble focusing correctly in very low-light/low-contrast situations....I think often misses in extremely dark situations without a flash. My 24-70mm doesn't have this problem!

Remember, the reason you want a "fast" lens is mostly because you want to stop the motion especially if your subject is moving. Assuming your subject is NOT moving and shooting with an f/4.0 in low light situations, you need either really steady hands or IS. The slowest shutter you want to reduce motion blur from holding your camera is 1/focal_length. For example, if you are shooting with a 50mm, then you should NOT shoot slower than 1/50th of a second; it's a general rule of thumb for me.

The Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS gets good reviews, but you pay practically the price for an L series lens. From reading the other comments in the thread, this is most likely not an option. But you would be getting USM, FTM control, and faster and possibly more accurate focusing than the Tamron 17-50mm version.

- Peter

Permalink Reply by Monica Oppold on February 1, 2010 at 8:25pm

Thank you Peter, for all of this information. I really appreciate you taking the time write this. At times like these I wish there wasn't so many choices or I had a money tree in my back yard!! I guess I have a lot of thinking to do.

Permalink Reply by Richard Crowe on February 1, 2010 at 5:58pm

Standard thinking is that prime lenses are "A LOT" sharper than zooms. This is so, but today's top-line zoom lenses are excellent optically and the fact that you CAN zoom with them usually allows you to frame your images much tighter. If you get a perfect frame with a prime lens, it is either because you lucked out to be in the exact spot you needed to be or that you were able to zoom in and out "with your feet" which is not always the case.

I would recommend that every photographer who wants a versatile lens battery start with a excellent quality mid-range zoom lens. I have changed my mind about the value of image stabilization (or whatever name a manufacturer gives to their system to reduce camera shake) in a mid-range zoom lens since I have been using the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens for the past eighteen months or so.

The IS system combined with the constant f/2.8 aperture makes this a very viable low light lens. Of course, image stabilization will not stop image motion but, I can usually work around subject motion if my entire frame is sharp. And... often, a little bit of blur in a moving subject gives the impression of motion. I remember a low light shot that I saw of a Chinese acrobat in which only his head was sharp and the rest of his body was a blur. It was a very effective image.

I would recommend one of two lenses:

Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS which is the cream of 1.6x mid-range zoom lenses but which is quite costly.

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC which is a really good lens which has most of the attributes of the Canon at half the price and with a longer warranty.

Either of the above lenses will be more versatile than your present kit lens.

However, using a hotshoe flash such as the Canon 430EX (I use both a 550EX and a 420EX which are older model flashes) bounced into a Joe Demb Flash Diffuser Pro will provide excellent results which will not have the harsh lighting normally associated with straight on flash photography.

www.dembflashproducts.com

Permalink Reply by Monica Oppold on February 1, 2010 at 8:32pm

Thank you Richard for your recommendations. I do use a diffuser with my flash. After seeing the results first hand, I wouldn't use my flash without it (unless I'm bouncing the flash off the ceiling). I did think about the Canon 17-55mm f 2.8 IS lens, but I wasn't thrilled about spending a grand or more on a non L series lens (I was kind of bummed it wasn't an L series lens). I guess that shouldn't matter. What matters is the quality of the picture I end up with. Once again, thank you for all this information.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page