Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS vs Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 VC Comparison Footage
- Thread starter matt9b
- Start date
brandondelnero
New member
I like the Tamaron slightly better, the lens flare is more symmetrical and for some reason I reacted to the colors a little bit more. Just slightly though
ChuckS
Veteran
Its impossible to truly compare quality online. I have the Tamron and I use it a lot. The build quality is good and the VC (IS) is much quieter but it could be argued that the VC is not as good as Canon's IS.
I don't know how the focus works on the comparable Canon 17-55 f2.8, I like the focus ring on my canon 17-55 f/3.5 better than the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. The Tamron has a very narrow throw and takes some getting used too.
I like the quality, weight and feel of the Tamron better, the image quality is comparable so I don't think the Canon is worth twice as much.
I don't know how the focus works on the comparable Canon 17-55 f2.8, I like the focus ring on my canon 17-55 f/3.5 better than the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. The Tamron has a very narrow throw and takes some getting used too.
I like the quality, weight and feel of the Tamron better, the image quality is comparable so I don't think the Canon is worth twice as much.
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
Can't tell much because I don't know what your f stop was. Also how are you focusing as the Canon looks soft but the focus keeps shifting around?
These lenses will look much closer at f.6 or above . at f2,8 the canon should be noticeably sharper- my experience anyway.
These lenses will look much closer at f.6 or above . at f2,8 the canon should be noticeably sharper- my experience anyway.
reem12
Veteran
Is it me or does anyone else feel the whites in the blown out areas on the tamron look more pleasing then that of the canon.
My observation is that the canon looks a tad bit sharper and more contrasty, thus giving off to me the harsh highlights and more video look. So for me the tamron looks more organic and filmic then the canon, but both looked great.
My observation is that the canon looks a tad bit sharper and more contrasty, thus giving off to me the harsh highlights and more video look. So for me the tamron looks more organic and filmic then the canon, but both looked great.
Last edited:
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
Turn off the Auto focus - it engages gears and will be free wheeling when you turn it off. This is is nice feature of the Canon as it moves freely in either mode.
I do see what Reem says about the Canon looking sharper and more contrasty - and like him I do prefer the Tamron.
However - Looking at the neutral setting that this was shot in I see that sharpness is all the way down but contrast is at the middle setting. I and many others like to set contrast all the way down so it would be interesting to see how this would look with contrast all the way down. It might change everything. Also i don't know how the compression was done on this and how that might affect the sharpness perception. So many variables and so hard to make an accurate test.
Again i would like to know the f - stop as I often shoot wide open and that's where I don't want my lens to break down.
BTW the first time I looked it was in SD - hence my concern about focus. HD looks better.
I do see what Reem says about the Canon looking sharper and more contrasty - and like him I do prefer the Tamron.
However - Looking at the neutral setting that this was shot in I see that sharpness is all the way down but contrast is at the middle setting. I and many others like to set contrast all the way down so it would be interesting to see how this would look with contrast all the way down. It might change everything. Also i don't know how the compression was done on this and how that might affect the sharpness perception. So many variables and so hard to make an accurate test.
Again i would like to know the f - stop as I often shoot wide open and that's where I don't want my lens to break down.
BTW the first time I looked it was in SD - hence my concern about focus. HD looks better.
jambredz
Veteran
I think this was a response to me...right?
I'm not talking about the focus ring...the zoom ring.
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
Yeah you're right - oh well, I don't remember it being stiff but didn't try any whip zooms - main problem with any zoom is you'll lose precise focus.
All shots were f2.8 :smile:
On the contrary, for me, for video, seeing un-corrected footage in action of how I would use a lens in general, is more practical and helpful to me than seeing a scientific test with lines on a piece of paper.
But seeing as apparently no one else finds it useful, I'll be sure to keep it to myself next time!
For a more scientific lens test, go here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=679
8string
Well-known member
Don't take offense, we all need to practice to get a better understanding of our tools, and you learned a bit. I would have liked to have you edit the shots so each comparison came right after the other, so we could see one and then the other, rather than wait.
I would have probably have used a tripod to do the comparison head to head, just to make sure your handholding isn't affecting sharpness.
My .01 is that the Tamron seemed fine and well color balanced. However in reading your linked review it seems that it's not a great lens. But hey, if you like it, use it!
I would have probably have used a tripod to do the comparison head to head, just to make sure your handholding isn't affecting sharpness.
My .01 is that the Tamron seemed fine and well color balanced. However in reading your linked review it seems that it's not a great lens. But hey, if you like it, use it!
Last edited:
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
Both at 2.8? That makes it more interesting to me. I'm surprised as the Tamron looks good on my laptop. Of course that's not much of a test. I'll check on my 24" when I get a chance. I returned my Tamron after finding it was too soft and I had tried 2 of them.
It would be interesting to see them shot with contrast at 0 though.
Its easy to tell Matt that he should have cut the shots together but think of what a PITA that would be as each shot would need a label. Be thankful he posted this. Tests are very time consuming.
It would be interesting to see them shot with contrast at 0 though.
Its easy to tell Matt that he should have cut the shots together but think of what a PITA that would be as each shot would need a label. Be thankful he posted this. Tests are very time consuming.
I felt that a tripod would defeat the purpose of these image stabilization lenses. If I'm using a tripod, I'll use a non IS prime anyway.
To be honest, my Tamron zoom ring is not stiff in the slightest.
The Canon zoom ring couldn't be used during filming, it's not smooth. The focus ring isn't that much smoother than the Tamron (they're both not adequate IMO). For a £800 lens though, you'd expect FAR more. If the Tamron was £100 and the Canon £140 then you'd understand. The Canon is certainly not worth double the price of the Tamron, let alone £800 odd.
The Canon zoom ring couldn't be used during filming, it's not smooth. The focus ring isn't that much smoother than the Tamron (they're both not adequate IMO). For a £800 lens though, you'd expect FAR more. If the Tamron was £100 and the Canon £140 then you'd understand. The Canon is certainly not worth double the price of the Tamron, let alone £800 odd.
It's not scientific. Lock the camera down on a tripod. Shoot both lens at the exact same ISO's, shutter speed, f-stop, white balance, same subject. Examine each image closely.
If you were mainly testing IS then you should I didn't catch that from your thread name. My bad if the case.
If you were mainly testing IS then you should I didn't catch that from your thread name. My bad if the case.
Last edited: