You forgot something. Canon offers both and on top of that the only 17-55 which comes with IS

This post has been edited by vikingw2k: Nov 24 2008, 11:24 AM

yeap, its still an overpriced lens

the IS at this FL is not necessary and the for the price, the image quality is nothing to boast about. If tamron can make it so cheap and yet still kicking ass in the image quality why can't them at least come close.





i tested with D70 & D200, on D70 it is pristine sharp while at D200, the lens obviously does not have as good resolved power compare to my N17-55. On canon, I tested it with 400D & 40D, and I notice the edge sharpness is not as distinctive as nikon variant, the Canon jpeg need a minor sharpening, but then it still obviously sharper than the C17-55IS. You might wan to test whether ur C Body having mis focus issue with the lens as usual.



p/s: i personally own some of the lenses or have access to it anytime to came to the conclusion. Not sit at home reading from INTERNET

i wouldn't agree on tammy offering good quality. I'm using one, and I would say if budget allows I will take the 17-40 f4L or the 17-55 f2.8 IS anytime. The tammy is sharp, but the colour is abit bluish (can easily be fixed in photoshop) and the bokeh is not smooth and edgy.

Sigma has release the 18-50 f2.8, but i will take the Tammy because it's slightly sharper

I agreed on the 1740L offering much better value but not the 17-55IS, as for the bokeh, very subjective loh. majority of my clients are not die hard creamy bokeh lovers. As for the bluish, can easily fixed by WB adjustment or Hue adjustment lah.


the Sigma 18-50 is an very old lens, much pricier and not anything worth to boast about. I wouldnot mind using the 18-70 as a travel lens. still the only option that has a reasonably wide FL and offer 2.8-4.

given the over killing price of almost double the nikon cost over tamron, i don't think the nikon has double the sharpness of tamron or perform anywhere twice the better than the tamron.

the sigma 18-50 f2.8 is not that old, launch July 2004. The nikon 17-55 f2.8 is even older, launch July 2003.

cheers i dint say the N is cheap my 1st post already say the N is expensive. I also dint say N17-55 is newer than S1850.


My points is, for budget usage the T is worth the price while if u got the money to burn, go for the N if u use F mount lah of coz.
For canon, budget is still the T, but better options would be the C1740 rather than the C1755.

cheers

i'm just looking at every single aspect, be it Canon, Nikon, Sigma or Tamron. Sharing with others what I know and don't hide the truth from others the brand being 'whoreship'. That is just so immature and fanboy. I'm sure you are not

This post has been edited by Vincent Pang: Nov 24 2008, 01:01 PM

Worshiping rocks! At least it made a lot of persons felt great after paying luxury for gears


Don't worry I am not fanboy, i uses both C & N day in and day out. I find that most of the time, my C have problem on the focusing accuracy rather then the lens fault. If time permit, MF can get much better sharpness from the C lenses.

some users told me the tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 's AF is slow on D40..

i havent got a chance to try it out.

This lens is in my wishlist as well.. so many lenses to buy.. lol..

no need to argue....

i owned 17-40 f4L, tamron 17-50mm f2.8 ( previously ), both lens are sharp!

18-50 mm ... i have no idea..

17-70mm i also no idea..

but any lens can take good picture with smart skill.. :-)

if both lens are sharp, no need to buy 17-40 f4 L, but buy 17-50 f2.8, cheaper, longer, faster (f2.8), slightly slower focus (no USM)... why spend the extra bucks on 17-40 f4 L

Tammy 17-50 focusing speed is a no go when compared to C and N's of the same range.

Shooting weddings is one hell of a job with the T17-50 when there are shots you want to shoot but it just doesnt focus in time when the moment has passed. the built-in motor and non motorized version also has some diff in focusing speed. screw drived focusing is slightly faster than the built in motor

I choose Tammy for it f2.8 from back to front and sharpness.

and it is true the auto focus is not fast enough.

Because i find out that i mostly use F4 and above to shot my picture. besides that, i want the USM and better built lens. So i went for 17-40L.

that's why ler now u understand we were not arguing, but merely discussing and sharing the pro and con of the lenses sure got some reason why you buy that lens over the other.

there's the sigma 18-50 f2.8 what.

I really wonder why Tokina never popular in Malaysia.
Their built quality are top-notch and yet it's wider than T1750mm aswell.

If I have the budget for sure I'll go for Tokina as the built is compareable to Nikkor ones.

i find having a large aperture will certainly beat focal length anyday. onw good example of such cameras would be the lx 3 with a aperture of 2.0 but this comes with a sacrifece that is 2.5x zoom. its again the same thing here as i woult opt for a larger aperture over focal length

Bro, actually I have tested on a few Canon's bodies... 350D, 400D, 30D and 40D... the image quality seems about the same... ya, on 30D and 40D, it is slightly better, but still, I don't see it is really sharp at all... ya, maybe I am too particular? lol!

At 1st, I thought I got a bad copy of Tamron lens, so I tested my friend's 17-50, it seems the same...

Actually my question is, on Canon's body, is Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is really sharper than any other Canon lenses? sigh...

If you have the budget might as well go for Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 or the 24-70mm f2.8