Tamron 17-50mm or Canon 17-85 IS + 50mm f/1.8?

[Orwella]

I have been given a lovely new 40d for my birthday (thanks wifey). The 17-85 kit lens is not bad, but clearly incapable of keeping up with a decent 10MP sensor. I have already decided to buy a Canon 55-250mm IS, but I'm unsure what is the best low-cost option at the wide end.

Option 1
Keep the 17-85 and buy a Canon f/1.8 50mm Prime. The 17-85 will then be my walkabout with the 50 used for low light and portraits.

Option 2
Sell the 17-85 and buy a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. I will loose some "walkabout" flexability but should gain a lot in IQ. The Tamron at 50 is supposedly almost as good as the 50mm Prime so I would not need the 3rd lens (just the 17-50 and 55-250).

Most of my photography will be family stuff - parties, holidays, snaps of the kids etc. I like the IS on the 17-85 but would appreciate the IQ benifits of the 17-50 (especially at the wider end where the Canon is poor). The big question for me is whether 17-50 will have enough range for a travel lens?

Also, will there be a noticeable difference in AF speeds between the two lenses?

Convince me please.

[drb5]

I haven't had the pleasure of the 17-50 on the 40D, but on the A100 it was a great lens.

It's usually compared with the 17-55 Canon lens which i have on the 40D and although on the whole the 17-55 wins, it doesn't win by much.

With that, i'd sell the 17-85 and go 17-50.....you will get used to the zoom range, i promis you.

[allymac123]

Tamron 17-50 F2.8.

There is a massive difference between 50 and 85. Theres a bit but its unlikely to be a problem I think.

[dazza74]

I bought the tamron 17-50 recently and during my research stumbled on this review, it compares the tamron to the canon 17-85 :

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...50_review.html

[jonnypb]

Tamron 17-50 2.8. I have that on my 40D and it's a very nice lens. Good in low light with the constant 2.8 and well built. It will pair up well with the 55-205IS as well as there'll only be a 5mm gap which you won't notice.

The 55-250IS is a very useable walkabout lens as well as it starts at 55mm whereas a lot of the telephoto lenses start at 70mm which isn't really wide enough for a walkabout. It's also very compact compared to the 70-300IS or 70-200.

[Orwella]

Thanks for the replies. It looks like the 17-85 will go on ebay with the proceeds going towards the tamron 17-50.

I had also considered the 70-200m F/4.0 L over the 55-250 but could not really justify the extra cost. The L is also a heavy beast to lug around (plus I hate the cream and black colour scheme - It shouts "I've got L glass and I'm a nob"). They should make a black option.

I will post sample shots once the kit arrives.

[happyhomer]

[QUOTE=Orwella;7263956]The L is also a heavy beast to lug around (plus I hate the cream and black colour scheme - It shouts "I've got L glass and I'm a nob"QUOTE]

Sit back, and wait for the replies I agree with you (not saying that people with big L's are nobs, but that a lot of onlookers will feel that way). It's also a good way of justifying not splashing the cash; I recently bought a 17-40 L, and if the longer zooms came in an all-black option I'd be bankrupt by now

[dazza74]

Would be interesting to see what would sell more if they brought the "L" lenses out in white or black. Thing that concerns me more is being mugged so having such a statement can't be good in today's society, they think nothing of beating somebody up for a mobile phone, camera and lens are rich pickings.

[loz]

Originally Posted by Orwella

Convince me please.

I would say that in 90 out a 100 everyday shots it would be impossible to tell the difference between the 17-50 tamron and the 17-85...

It isn't like the IQ differerence is night and day...
And you loose IS, and 35mm of reach (forcing more lens changes...)

Put your hand on your heart and say just because you have a slightly better lens you are guaranteed to get much better pictures than these http://www.flickr.com/groups/canonlens/pool/

Of course if you pixel peep you may no find improvements in the 17-50 tamron over the 17-85 canon.

But if you pixel peep you will doubt find flaws in the 17-50 too... and hence a quest for the perfect lens is never ending.

I think the 17-85 is more than good enough, and if you want to spend money I would vote on adding additional lenses, not replacing ones you have already for very small improvements in IQ.

Also, remember that the distortion and CA flaws in the 17-85 at the wide end are now easily fixed at the click of a button inow it is supported in DPP.

(but then I would say that as I just bought a 17-85mm for my 450D )

[jonnypb]

Originally Posted by Orwella

"I've got L glass and I'm a nob"). They should make a black option.

hmmm who's going to beat you over the head 1st with their white lens

I must admit if the 70-200 was black then yes i'd have one but i wouldn't say people are nob's who use L glass I'd love the 17-40 L 24-105L and 70-200 L (If it was black )

[py6km]

I've no direct experience with the Tamron lens, but my experience with the 17-85 IS and other lenses has led me to the conclusion that for 9 out of 10 shots there will most definitely be a noticeable real world difference in image quality between the 17-85 and something a little better, which may be stating the obvious.

I sold mine shortly after having it, and after having given it a good test out (as I really wanted to keep it). I wouldn't have got rid of it if I'd thought otherwise (and had initially got this kit becuase I thought the 17-85 was not a 'kit' lens) - well, it's not really a 'kit' lens as such, and is a nice bit of kit, but there are better options (aren't there always ). I certainly don't think you'd be making a mistake with you're proposed course.

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind not buying a lens because you don't like the look of it however. The lenses are light coloured for a reason - so they reflect sun more so that the lens doesn't overheat when used all day outside, as they're designed for, not so you people can see that you can afford an expensive lens. I don't care what colour it is, it's the final image quality that determines my reason to purchase, and with IQ comes cost.

BTW, the 50 1.8 is average imo. The 1.4 is better, but at a price. Depends how much you would consider that you'd use the prime.

[jonnypb]

Originally Posted by loz

It isn't like the IQ differerence is night and day...
And you loose IS, and 35mm of reach (forcing more lens changes...)

Correct that the difference isn't night and day but the Tamron is sharper and when you're presented in the following situtations the Tamron comes into life...

say you're at 50mm in low light and you want to get a pic of someone. Tamron can be at 50mm 2.8 to get a fast shutter speed, The Canon at 50mm would probably be at 4.5 or 5.0 - yes it has IS but that doesn't freeze the subject if it's moving like a child for instance

[loz]

Originally Posted by jonnypb

say you're at 50mm in low light and you want to get a pic of someone. Tamron can be at 50mm 2.8 to get a fast shutter speed, The Canon at 50mm would probably be at 4.5 or 5.0 - yes it has IS but that doesn't freeze the subject if it's moving like a child for instance

But neither does 2.8 let you get steady 1/10s shots without a tripod.

or even 1/2s...

There's pro's and con's both ways...

[h4rri]

Originally Posted by Orwella

plus I hate the cream and black colour scheme - It shouts "I've got L glass and I'm a nob

Really, well I guess I'm a 'nob' then. I honestly bought mine to willy wave with and it had 'nothing' to do with the quality, speed and weather sealing. I mean everything I consider purchasing I have to think about what other people will think of me for buying it [/sarcasm]

If you want the quality and have the money then buy some 'L' glass because of it's virtues and not what people will think of you. If you are that concerned with others opinions then grab a black lens coat and cover it. Failing that buy Nikon, all their Nikkor's are black or stick to the non-black 'L's.

Why not grab the 70-300 DO IS? It's the best of the bunch and a pinch and circa £800.

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by allymac123

There is a massive difference between 50 and 85. Theres a bit but its unlikely to be a problem I think.

Do you mean "isn't"?