View Full Version : Yet Another 7D Lens Question...(Kit lens vs Tamron 17-50mm?)
Chance White
09-27-2009, 07:07 PM
The information I'm seeking is a comparison of the kit lens and the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8. Beyond of course simply the range in focal length and speed, but more regarding image quality. Will the Tamron, since it is more prime and comparable to the highly praised Nikon in the same range, produce sharper imagery then the Canon kit lens? And will it have advantages/disadvantages for video?
My reason for asking is I'm considering purchasing the body only, the Tamron, a fast 50mm, and a fast 80 as a foundation.
Thank you all in advance for responses.
danjchoi
09-27-2009, 08:01 PM
Bump for the same question in mind...the price and versatility in range for the kit lens is appealing.
ydgmdlu
09-27-2009, 08:18 PM
The information I'm seeking is a comparison of the kit lens and the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8. Beyond of course simply the range in focal length and speed, but more regarding image quality. Will the Tamron, since it is more prime and comparable to the highly praised Nikon in the same range, produce sharper imagery then the Canon kit lens? And will it have advantages/disadvantages for video?
My reason for asking is I'm considering purchasing the body only, the Tamron, a fast 50mm, and a fast 80 as a foundation.
Thank you all in advance for responses.
The Tamron lens in question has an excellent reputation for image quality. Most users consider the image quality to match or exceed almost any Canon kit lens and to even rival Canon's elite L-series lenses. I have the full-frame version of that lens, and I love it. The main downside is that the focus ring has very little throw, which many filmmakers consider a hinderance to focusing. Personally, I don't mind it.
Honestly, the kit lens is not a great lens. When a zoom lens only adds $200 to the price of the body-only package, the quality is suspect. Plus, since the wide end is 28mm, you'll get 45mm FOV, which greatly diminishes the usefulness of the lens, IMO. A better option would be if you could get the kit with the 18-135mm lens. Even if the image quality isn't the best, then at least you'll have a great zoom range for a nice, low price.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the Tamron is "more prime." Perhaps you mean that it has a narrower zoom range, but I don't see how that would contribute to image sharpness.
mhood
09-27-2009, 08:22 PM
I bought the Tamron to go with the kit 28-135. It's sitting on the shelf gathering dust w8ing on my 7D to ship from Amazon.
Chance White
09-27-2009, 08:45 PM
Thanks for the input. By 'more prime', I do mean a narrower zoom range. It seems that some tend to believe that the narrower the zoom range, the closer to prime, hence the higher IQ...
So in the US for kit lens are there some packages that contain different configurations? If I were to get the kit lens, I'd definitely opt for the 18-135, though the overall excellent reaction to the Tamron makes it look very attractive, and coupled with the other lenses I mentioned (prime fast 50mm for low light and a nice long prime), and given I am interested in shooting video mostly, perhaps that's the way to go (sans kit lens, Tamron 17-50, prime fast 50 and 85)
BTW a Best Buy near me seems to believe they are receiving the camera tomorrow... anyone else heard anything about them dropping tomorrow or Tuesday?
ydgmdlu
09-27-2009, 09:10 PM
BTW a Best Buy near me seems to believe they are receiving the camera tomorrow... anyone else heard anything about them dropping tomorrow or Tuesday?
Interesting... Canon's saying that they are shipping cameras from warehouses tomorrow, worldwide, but some stores (in Canada, UK, and possibly U.S.) did receive the 7D on Friday (the 25th).
ydgmdlu
09-27-2009, 09:11 PM
Believe me: Having an F2.8 constant aperture for a zoom can be a life saver when you're shooting video.
Chance White
09-27-2009, 09:14 PM
Yes constant aperture sounds brilliant.
Thanks for the guidance.
ydgmdlu
09-27-2009, 09:25 PM
Oh yeah, be aware that the Tamron does not have image stabilization, which is definitely a disadvantage for video. But, IMO, the F2.8 constant max aperture is more important.
Reptorama
09-28-2009, 12:07 AM
Or wait a little longer for the new Tamron 17-50 which has stabilisation built in...
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-tamron-17-50mm-f2-8-xr-di-ii-vc-lens-canon-fit/p1033481
J Davis
09-28-2009, 02:03 AM
Anyone know if the Tamron 17-50 hold's focus throught the zoom on a single take?
(some still zooms don't)
Lkorver
09-28-2009, 10:00 AM
wait, so which lens has constant aperture?
ydgmdlu
09-28-2009, 10:14 AM
The Tamron lens has a constant maximum aperture. You can tell from the fact that in the lens's specification, only a single number is given for the maximum aperture: Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 Di-II LD Aspherical. In the specification for the Canon kit lens, you see F3.5-5.6. This means that the maximum aperture will vary across its zoom range.
Lkorver
09-28-2009, 10:42 AM
gracias!
J Davis
09-28-2009, 10:50 AM
bump!
Does anyone know if the Tamron 17-50 holds its focus throughout the zoom?
Sumfun
09-28-2009, 11:20 AM
Believe me: Having an F2.8 constant aperture for a zoom can be a life saver when you're shooting video.
While a constant aperture is nice to have, it's not going to kill you if you don't have it. Remember that the zoom lenses on many prosumer camcorders (including the DVX100 and HVX200) are variable aperture.
Oh, that Tamron looks like a nice lens! It's going on my list as a possible contender after I get my Sigma 30mm f/1.4
ydgmdlu
09-28-2009, 02:07 PM
While a constant aperture is nice to have, it's not going to kill you if you don't have it. Remember that the zoom lenses on many prosumer camcorders (including the DVX100 and HVX200) are variable aperture.
Over the weekend, I did a fast-paced shoot in which I used only two zoom lenses and one prime, even though I have a bag full of primes. The zooms really helped get the job done efficiently, because all that I had to do was set/check the exposure and focus, then find the focal length that I wanted, compose the shot, and then record. I was on F2.8 because I wanted the DOF of F2.8 (at any focal length). If the maximum aperture had varied with focal length, then I would've had to keep adjusting the exposure to compensate, and I wouldn't have been able to get the DOF that I wanted.
It's an even bigger deal in low-light situations. Light is already precious as it is in those cases, and you're probably already using maximum aperture in order to keep from resorting to higher ISOs. If you're relying on a zoom lens, instead of some fast primes, for whatever reason, then you'll have to deal with the headaches of losing up to a stop and a half from one end of the zoom range to the other.
I didn't say that variable aperture is a "killer." I said that constant aperture can be a "life saver." Big difference. Also, the Tamron lens is faster than the kit lens, which makes its constant maximum aperture even more valuable. The variable aperture zoom lenses on prosumer camcorders are faster as well.
FatDaddy
09-28-2009, 02:33 PM
I didn't realize zoom lens on some camcorders have the sliding aperture until I did a test last week with the Canon XH-A1 and it sure did go up during the zoom. I also tested the 24-105 with IS today and it does make a difference with handheld work. As much as I hate to pay $1000 for the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS EF-S lens it is looking pretty nice as a workhorse lens for the 7D (or wait for the IS version of the Tamron at half the price).
Sttratos
09-28-2009, 03:03 PM
I'm noticing that most people are going for zooms for their 7Ds. As this is a filmmaking community I find this interesting. I'm sure it has to do with budget, but primes would be the way I thought most would go. I know I am. I can't stand shooting narrative with zooms for some reason. Then again many are getting the 7D for eng and other things other than filmmaking. But for filmmaking, you can most likely get a decent set of 3 or 4 used primes for the price of a brand new zoom. Specially if you go for Nikons. Since EF lenses are newer and have auto focus, even used, they cost more than manual older nikon primes and the nikons are great glass. Nikon adapters are cheap too.
Sttratos
09-28-2009, 03:07 PM
Oh, that Tamron looks like a nice lens! It's going on my list as a possible contender after I get my Sigma 30mm f/1.4
A 30mm seems like a good all around lens for a ASP-C camera. Is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 the one most are gravitating towards? I think 30-35mm should be a normal perspective lens for the 7D.
Chance White
09-28-2009, 04:06 PM
I'm noticing that most people are going for zooms for their 7Ds. As this is a filmmaking community I find this interesting. I'm sure it has to do with budget, but primes would be the way I thought most would go. I know I am. I can't stand shooting narrative with zooms for some reason. Then again many are getting the 7D for eng and other things other than filmmaking. But for filmmaking, you can most likely get a decent set of 3 or 4 used primes for the price of a brand new zoom. Specially if you go for Nikons. Since EF lenses are newer and have auto focus, even used, they cost more than manual older nikon primes and the nikons are great glass. Nikon adapters are cheap too.
Just how much of an image quality improvement is a prime over a shorter range zoom (for instance a wide zoom like the Tamron 17-50, lol)
A zoom makes sense if you can only afford one lens, I guess. I'm going for a few primes , and then one zoom to cover the gaps. Plus, a zoom is nice to have as a 'walking around' lens.
boulder
10-03-2009, 07:40 PM
I purchased the Tamron 17-50 (but still saving up for the 7D), but I had a question about IS. How big of a deal is IS for video? I know nothing I've shot with so far has it but how useful is it? My Tamron doesn't have IS. Also is the auto focusing very useful for video? I guess I'm just used to shooting manually, focusing myself, and using stabilizers and tripods so I'm sincerely asking the questions
ydgmdlu
10-03-2009, 08:51 PM
I purchased the Tamron 17-50 (but still saving up for the 7D), but I had a question about IS. How big of a deal is IS for video? I know nothing I've shot with so far has it but how useful is it? My Tamron doesn't have IS. Also is the auto focusing very useful for video? I guess I'm just used to shooting manually, focusing myself, and using stabilizers and tripods so I'm sincerely asking the questions
I've heard that the IS does help a little bit with stability and reducing rolling shutter artifacts, but the difference is most noticeable at longer focal lengths, i.e. greater than 50mm. Some say that hand-holding at focal lengths 50mm and less is no problem. You'll have to see for yourself.
The camera does not autofocus continuously while recording. You can autofocus before each take, however.
the_wallbanger
10-03-2009, 09:22 PM
I just received my 7D a couple of days ago and have been using the Tamron 17-50 and the Canon 50mm f1.8. Here are some observations..
The Tamron is sharp! Great lens, but some caveats. The Tamron has a short focus throw. It's sensitive, responding to minuscule touches on the focus ring at 2.8. I've been getting much better with only a couple of hours of practice. Completely usable. For image quality, I'd recommend it over the kit lens.
Yes, the Tamron holds focus throughout the zoom. Nail the focus at 17mm and you'll be good all the way to 50mm.
The Tamron is loud. The 7D has a button on the back of the camera that you can press to nail focus while recording. The Tamron is very audible every time this is engaged... BUT you probably won't be recording video in AF because..
Unlike some of Canon's USM lenses, the Tamron only has a full-auto or full-manual mode. Some lenses allow you to autofocus and then make adjustments with the focus ring. The Tamron isn't so advanced. You need to hit a switch to switch between the MF/AF functions.
Bottom line.. Great color and superb sharpness. The other shortcomings regarding focusing can be overcome with practice.
I've also been playing with the "nifty-fifty". Good low light images, but the same difficulties with the MF/AF switch. I believe the focus throw is about 90 degrees where the 50 1.4 is almost 180. The 1.8's focus ring is also on the edge of the lens, so it might be easy to get fingertip into the field of view if you're inexperienced.
Of note, my wife was really put off by the lack of AF in video mode, but she actually caught on quite quickly and enjoys the challenge. It's been a fun couple of days.
jrod81
10-03-2009, 11:56 PM
so getting back to the question... is the Tamaron a better buy than the one that comes with the 7D... body only purchase for me too if so...
ydgmdlu
10-04-2009, 12:09 AM
I think that you should ask yourself why you might prefer the kit lens over the the Tamron. If you can't find any compelling reasons, and if none of what the_wallbanger said (excellent overview, BTW!) sounds like a deal-breaker, then you might consider the Tamron a better buy.
But the truth is that we can't give very meaningful advice to you unless we have a better understanding of what your needs are. Some people find the kit lenses to be worthwhile, but others don't. And they all have their reasons. So what do you want most from a standard zoom lens?
jrod81
10-04-2009, 12:26 AM
i can't find a release date on this bad boy? anyone?
Or wait a little longer for the new Tamron 17-50 which has stabilisation built in...
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-tamron-17-50mm-f2-8-xr-di-ii-vc-lens-canon-fit/p1033481
ydgmdlu
10-04-2009, 12:31 AM
It's available right now. Amazon, for example, has them in stock.
jrod81
10-04-2009, 12:47 AM
amazon, duh, sorry and thanks,
this is it right:
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-17-50mm-Vibration-Compensation-Digital/dp/B002LVUIXA/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1254638869&sr=8-3
ydgmdlu
10-04-2009, 12:57 AM
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1765978&postcount=9
the_wallbanger
10-04-2009, 10:39 PM
Just shot this video with the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8. Please see my impressions of the lens on page 3 of this thread.
http://vimeo.com/6901913
This was my first time out with the intent to use the video function. I blew some highlights here and there by not paying close enough attention to the light meter. No color correction or other post processing. WYSIWYG.
dadoboy
10-05-2009, 12:59 AM
Looked sharp with that lens! Cute cute kid!
Just shot this video with the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8. Please see my impressions of the lens on page 3 of this thread.
http://vimeo.com/6901913
This was my first time out with the intent to use the video function. I blew some highlights here and there by not paying close enough attention to the light meter. No color correction or other post processing. WYSIWYG.
mhood
10-05-2009, 05:30 AM
You have wonderful handheld skills. No IS version of the Tamron, right? Did you have any sort of stabilization equipment or were you just in full stealth mode? Any tips?
the_wallbanger
10-05-2009, 05:46 AM
You have wonderful handheld skills. No IS version of the Tamron, right? Did you have any sort of stabilization equipment or were you just in full stealth mode? Any tips?
No IS in this lens, but I learned an easy technique from reading this board. Simply pull the camera strap taught when using longer focal lengths. Also, you'll be focusing with your left hand. While pulling focus, I supported some camera weight with my pinky below the lens hood. I believe the further your two hands are apart from each other, the more stable the camera will become.
Matt Choules
10-21-2009, 02:15 PM
I'm also considering this lens... I was thinking of going body only and maybe getting this lens as a general shooting lens.
I have Nikon primes that should marry well with the 7d.
I must admit that after seeing the pumpkin patch video I think I would want IS.
But then I am hopefully getting a z-Finder or LCDVF to add another point of contact.
boulder
10-30-2009, 10:48 AM
I have both and find they compliment each other. The Tamron is wider and faster which is great and the Canon is longer and has IS for times when I need that.
alpi69
11-01-2009, 02:06 AM
Just shot this video with the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8. Please see my impressions of the lens on page 3 of this thread.
http://vimeo.com/6901913
This was my first time out with the intent to use the video function. I blew some highlights here and there by not paying close enough attention to the light meter. No color correction or other post processing. WYSIWYG.
This video shows why IS is needed even in below 50mm ranges. Donīt forget 50 on the 7D is actually 80mm which is a tele-range.
The little jitters are the problem. not the handheld-moves as such but the tiny shakes. Those can be taken away with an IS lens.
I wait for the Tamron 17-50 VC (=IS) version. Should be out this week.
Thinking about the kit lens and I saw this done with the 28-135. It is really good.
http://vimeo.com/7807905
Matt Choules
11-25-2009, 10:07 AM
Kinda sucks that our American cousins get palmed off with a 28-135mm when us in the EU get a 18-135mm...
HVXmania
11-30-2009, 03:25 AM
I've got 6 beautiful primes but I'm going to get a fast zoom with image stabilisation and probably rely on that instead. It's impossible to get usable footage handheld on the 7D without image stabilisation. the camera is very sensitive to the tiny fast vibrations that arise. They make the image turn to jelly due to the rolling shutter issue. Even on a shoulder mount, I've found it to be an issue. Also, if you've got a zoom that goes to f2.8 all the way though why do you need primes?! I find depth of field shallower than that a bit gimmicky and usually annoying in narrative films because of its myopic 'no, you can only see this tiny slice of a person's nose' effect. The sharper image quality of primes isn't going to show up at HD video resolution. I haven't noticed whether the primes yield better colour.
Matt Choules
11-30-2009, 03:51 AM
I very much like my new Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, although it does not have IS.
I would disagree and say that if you simply increase the amounts of contact points with the body you can get very usable footage from handheld on non-IS primes.
ronscuba
11-30-2009, 09:40 AM
I've got 6 beautiful primes but I'm going to get a fast zoom with image stabilisation and probably rely on that instead. It's impossible to get usable footage handheld on the 7D without image stabilisation. the camera is very sensitive to the tiny fast vibrations that arise. They make the image turn to jelly due to the rolling shutter issue. Even on a shoulder mount, I've found it to be an issue. Also, if you've got a zoom that goes to f2.8 all the way though why do you need primes?! I find depth of field shallower than that a bit gimmicky and usually annoying in narrative films because of its myopic 'no, you can only see this tiny slice of a person's nose' effect. The sharper image quality of primes isn't going to show up at HD video resolution. I haven't noticed whether the primes yield better colour.
Is is possible the need to go below 2.8 is for lighting ?