Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS vs Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 VC Comparison Footage

draven4 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Was testing the lenses in a way that I'd be using them mate, so that includes the IS. Since I'd be using for video i'm not overly concerned with looking at each pixel in close detail. I also didn't have a model available to me or a secure location or resources to be able to sit down with a tripod, a model, and some lenses and the time or will to do all of that, sorry. I also apologise if my thread title was not specific enough. I have found this lens test to be more useful to me than what you'd have suggested, and anything else I've found online. I can understand everyone has different wants and methods and different styles and projects that they prefer, so one test will not suit all, however I didn't realise posting this would invite such scrutiny, I'll be more careful about posting personal tests online in future
 
Last edited:
Please don't hesitate to post personal tests. This was useful and contrary to my expectations. Its made me think.
Its fine to be critical of what these or anybody elses tests show, but think twice about how you criticize the peron who generously posted his experiments here and tell them how much more time they should have put into it. There's a big difference between - I'd like to see ..... or You should have done x y & z. May seem minor and no harm done, but I think etiquette is really important on these forums.
I'd hate to see people not post because they're hesitant to be attacked.
 
I for one found this post very helpful. I am a 7D shooter who mostly does still photog but I want to get into video more. I have a tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and it's a great lens, however, I am thinking of upgrading to canons 17-55 for a number of reasons. I know its a lot more money but I think the tradeoff is contrast, saturation and sharpness when it comes to still photography. Also, when applying for "gigs" for still photography, the canon lens would put you higher up on the list than the tamron. I recently sold a ton of stuff on ebay so I could afford the canon. I will be buying a neoprene cover $44 cheap insurance against dust and lens hood (cheap ebay version) and I will be glad to pay it. To me, the canon lens in this video looks much sharper. It was very apparent in the italian restaurant sign around the edges of the letters on the sign and also apparent elsewhere. So again, I found the video informative and something that has greatly reinforced my decision to pay around $1200 for the lens and accessories. What would be really cool is if you could split the video in after effect or something where we could see relatively the same thing side by side. Not asking you to do any more work on this but I think the difference would be more apparent.

I have the non VC version of the Tamron so I am looking forward to the IS of the Canon as well. It will be my first IS lens. Granted my 7D came with an IS kit lens but that went on ebay right away. The only reason I even got it was because when the 7D first came out, I couldnt find a non kit version anywhere and Fryes was the only place that had the kit version. Anyway, thanks for the post!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top