Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 or Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 ???

[joeyd]

[indent]ok so i'm going to buy either the 600d or 5d mark ii.[/indent] [indent]if i buy the 600d/t3i- i need to decide between[/indent] [indent]
Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] Lens (£300)
or
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (£650!!)


I also want to buy the Sigma 30mm F/1.4 EX DC HSM.

Is it stupid buying lenses for apc-s sensors? [/indent] [indent]should i just invest in full frame? if so...what's the best all round lens to get for the 5D Mark II??[/indent]

[QuickHitRecord]

I can't speak for the Tamron but the [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM was my favorite when I was shooting with my 7D. This was the last piece that I shot with it before I sold it:[/font][/color]

http://vimeo.com/43008797

Simply a fantastic lens.

[nigelbb]

[color=#000000][font=verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(245, 245, 255)]When I bought my Canon 600D I went cheap & bought the Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 VC instead of the Canon 17-55mm F/2.8 IS as it was half the price of the Canon lens. The IS was really noisy, the AF was slow, you need to slide the switch from AF to MF when manually focusing or you fight the AF motor & worst of all [/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(245, 245, 255)]the focus & zoom rings rotate the wrong (Nikon) way[/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(245, 245, 255)]. There were other things that bugged me that I don't recall now but the Canon lens is just so much better that it is easily worth the money even if it did cost more than the camera. The optics of the Tamron were OK but everything else was so irritating that I would have been cursing my meanness every time that I used it if I hadn't returned[/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(245, 245, 255)] the Tamron the very next day & bought the [/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(245, 245, 255)]Canon 17-55mm F/2.8 IS EF-S.[/background][/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(245, 245, 255)]The Canon 17-55mm F/2.8 IS is a really fab lens for any of the Canon APS-C DSLRs. It is very sharp, has fast AF plus very quiet & effective IS. It's the lens that I use most of the time on my C300.[/background][/size][/font][/color]

[jgharding]

I have one experience of Tamron: I wanted a cheap walkaround lens instead of all my primes. I sold it a short while after I got it: poor AF and MF, plastic build, felt tacky to me. I also owned a Sigma 20mm f1.8 for a bit and Sigma 28-70. Both of those had flaws, dodgy image at certain lengths and apertures, slightly tacky build. I just saved a bit more and switched to older high-quality manual primes.

If you do want a zoom the advice stands with lenses: buy the best you can save for, it saves you selling the cheap one when you get tired of it and buy the nice one anyway! :D Plus they outlive camera bodies by a long way, especially if you pick Full frame ones that can adapt with any body you might get in the future.

Not sure about investing in EF-S as opposed to EF, just because it's limiting in a way, but it depends how you think you may use it in future.

[nigelbb]

[quote name='jgharding' timestamp='1346849922' post='17362']Not sure about investing in EF-S as opposed to EF, just because it's limiting in a way, but it depends how you think you may use it in future.[/quote]The Canon 17-55mm F/2.8 is one of the very few EF-S lenses that it's really worth investing in. Optically it's very good but the build quality is very plasticky & not up to the weatherproofing of an 'L' lens. The Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8 is the only other EF-S lens that's really worth it. It probably would be better to invest in full frame lenses but you need these two lenses to get wide end for the APS-C sensor as there is no full frame equivalent. The former is like a 24-70mm on a full frame while the Tokina is like a 16-35mm.

[joeyd]

this photography review website doesn't seem to think much of the canon, and gives a better score to the tamron- i dont know what to think!

http://***URL removed***/products/tamron/lenses/tamron_17-50_2p8_di-ii

[joeyd]

apparantly the tamron VC lens is a lot worse than the non-VC version (which is actually also cheaper!)

[andy lee]

the sigma 30mm 1.4 is a very good lens on Canon aps-c I use this alot

[jgharding]

[quote name='nigelbb' timestamp='1346853188' post='17364']
The Canon 17-55mm F/2.8 is one of the very few EF-S lenses that it's really worth investing in. Optically it's very good but the build quality is very plasticky & not up to the weatherproofing of an 'L' lens. The Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8 is the only other EF-S lens that's really worth it. It probably would be better to invest in full frame lenses but you need these two lenses to get wide end for the APS-C sensor as there is no full frame equivalent. The former is like a 24-70mm on a full frame while the Tokina is like a 16-35mm.
[/quote]

Yeah the 11-16 Tokina is the only APS-C I have. Actually it's shared because it doesn't get a huge amount of use, but it's good to have the ultra-wide option. In fact, last time I needed that wide a point-of-view I just stuck a cheap wide adapter on the front of my 20m and corrected the fisheye dostortion in post!!! No one noticed, actually someone complimented that shot, the soft edges looked pretty cool. I'll probably use that trick again ;)