Author Topic: Help me choose between two lenses (Read 4740 times)

morning.light · « **on:** July 25, 2013, 10:55 »

After looooooots of thinking, I finally narrowed down my options:

1. Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD
2. Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

Besides the weight difference between them, I pretty much like both, so don't know which to choose.

Can someone who worked with both these lenses tell me which lens gives a better image quality? This is the only thing that could help me finally choose.

Thanks in advance!

elvinstar · « **Reply #1 on:** July 25, 2013, 20:05 »

The Tamron all the way! You'll get much better low-light performance than with the Canon.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #2 on:** July 25, 2013, 20:25 »

I don't know either of them but I do know that a lens that is f2.8 throughout its range is far more useful than one that will be down to f5.6 at maximum zoom and likely to hunt for focus. That's just a quarter of the light of the "faster" lens.

That leaves the question of optical quality which you would need to check.

shotupdave · « **Reply #3 on:** July 25, 2013, 21:22 »

I prefer a fixed f/stop lens. I do not want to have to think changing the shutter speed if I zoom in and out of a scene. Able to shoot on the big end at that ƒ2.8 for that shallow depth of field is real nice. I recently sold my kit 18-55mm ƒ3.5-5.6 lens and bought a 17-55mm ƒ2.8.

tickstock · « **Reply #4 on:** July 25, 2013, 22:04 »

Xanox · « **Reply #5 on:** July 25, 2013, 23:21 »

i had the Tamron and while it's sharp and the quality is good the build quality of Tamron lenses leaves a lot to be desired ! the AF is atrocious compared to canon/nikon and even Sigma ! and the internal VR is a joke considering it can ruin many images when the AF f-ucks up, so i had to use it with the VR off but really the AF was the dealbreaker, too slow and noisy and cranky for my tastes.

for anything else good value for money but there's a reason if these lenses are so cheap.
buy the Sigma instead !

elvinstar · « **Reply #6 on:** July 25, 2013, 23:30 »

Xanox, my experience with Tamron has been very different from yours. I have a 17-50 f/2.8 and a 28-75 f/2.8 and don't have any AF problems with either of them.

pancaketom · « **Reply #7 on:** July 25, 2013, 23:36 »

I had the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and thought the image quality was excellent. Focus was a bit slower and noisier than lenses costing twice as much, but I didn't get it for sports. The build quality was so/so, but once again that is comparing it to something costing a lot more- on the flip side with all that plastic it was pretty light. It did get fungus inside when I was in SE Asia for 2 months though.

Donvanstaden · « **Reply #8 on:** July 26, 2013, 02:51 »

50mm 1.4... on a crop sensor works out to 75mm... I use it for everything... portraits... food... another thing to consider is if you upgrade to full frame your ef-s lenses will be obsolete!

Nikd90 · « **Reply #9 on:** July 26, 2013, 05:40 »

While we are discussing fast and not-so fast lenses, I have sth to ask experts. Fast lenses can stop down to high aperture and can be used for low light conditions but I have read and experienced that results are too soft at f2. Only at around f8 I get sharp photo. So having a fast lens defeats the purpose. Moreover due to shallow depth of view most of the stock agencies have rejected my photos, which forced me to shoot always at and above f5.6. I have not used my primes for quite sometime now. Is there anything that I am not quite getting? Or a lot of things that I am missing?

Donvanstaden · « **Reply #10 on:** July 26, 2013, 09:09 »

Quote from: Nikd90 on July 26, 2013, 05:40

While we are discussing fast and not-so fast lenses, I have sth to ask experts. Fast lenses can stop down to high aperture and can be used for low light conditions but I have read and experienced that results are too soft at f2. Only at around f8 I get sharp photo. So having a fast lens defeats the purpose. Moreover due to shallow depth of view most of the stock agencies have rejected my photos, which forced me to shoot always at and above f5.6. I have not used my primes for quite sometime now. Is there anything that I am not quite getting? Or a lot of things that I am missing?

Most lenses are soft at their extreme apetures... My 1.4 is super sharp from f2.... my 300 f4 is super sharp from 5.6... i generaly shoot my 50ml between 2.8 and 5.6.... never been rejected for DOF

shumicse · « **Reply #11 on:** August 29, 2013, 23:45 »

I think Tamron will be perfect for you. It has good reputation. Best of luck !

ACS · « **Reply #12 on:** August 30, 2013, 03:04 »

If you want to shoot portraits, people, still life in the studio buy Tamron. But if you are more likely to be on the street, travel, architectural photography side, buy Canon.