To those who have actual experience of both, not interested in the virtues of IS, which is actually sharper? Has better contrast?

I have a Tam 17-50 I considered to be a good copy, but it either doesn't completely suit, or isn't quite good enough for my new 450D/Xsi sensor

I'm getting good, but unspectacular results, while my 70-300 IS and 35 f2 for example are giving me sharper, crisper results. I'm also struggling for accurate focus on distant objects at 17mm, even using the centre AF point only.

Is the 17-55IS REALLY going to be worth the 100% (or more) extra? I am talking real gritty pixel peeping here, my standards are very high

David

If your 70-300 is producing sharper images, I would say your 17-50 is a dud.

I just got the 17-50 yesterday and it is a dream at even f/2.8.

My 17-50 is comparable to the results from my 50mm 1.8, perhaps even edging it out at 2.8. For a budget zoom to match a prime, that's pretty damn good.

Esquire08 wrote:
If your 70-300 is producing sharper images, I would say your 17-50 is a dud.

I just got the 17-50 yesterday and it is a dream at even f/2.8.

That's the thing. On my 400D the 17-50 was fine, very good in fact but it either doesn't quite suit the 450D sensor or the sensor is too good for it, that' why I'm asking about the 17-55IS (hope I get an answer to that question)

David

dhphoto wrote:
I'm also struggling for accurate focus on distant objects at 17mm, even using the centre AF point only.

Is the 17-55IS REALLY going to be worth the 100% (or more) extra? I am talking real gritty pixel peeping here, my standards are very high.

David

That's very interesting, because it's kind of the same trouble I have with my Tamron 17-35 (350D). OK, sorry, I know it's a different lens, but our results sound similar. I get rather mushy details. Center is OK. I even sent it back to Tamron twice and they supposedly calibrated it.

I guess it's a little better now and it's fine for some types of shots, but it has me leery of the 17-50 and longing for the 17-55.

Your statement about gritty pixel peeping and very high standards, makes me think that you'll regret not getting the 17-55 if you have anything less than superb results with the Tamron.

The jury is still out for me on the 17-50 and I don't think I'd buy another without trying it and closely examining the images. I'm getting tired of having to send lenses back.

Andy

ange wrote:
dhphoto wrote:
I'm also struggling for accurate focus on distant objects at 17mm, even using the centre AF point only.

Is the 17-55IS REALLY going to be worth the 100% (or more) extra? I am talking real gritty pixel peeping here, my standards are very high.

David

That's very interesting, because it's kind of the same trouble I have with my Tamron 17-35 (350D). OK, sorry, I know it's a different lens, but our results sound similar. I get rather mushy details. Center is OK. I even sent it back to Tamron twice and they supposedly calibrated it.

I guess it's a little better now and it's fine for some types of shots, but it has me leery of the 17-50 and longing for the 17-55.

Your statement about gritty pixel peeping and very high standards, makes me think that you'll regret not getting the 17-55 if you have anything less than superb results with the Tamron.

The jury is still out for me on the 17-50 and I don't think I'd buy another without trying it and closely examining the images. I'm getting tired of having to send lenses back.

Andy


I'm considering the option of dumping 1.6 crop entirely and just using my 1D2N and full frame cameras rather than shell out for a 17-55IS. It just seems to make more sense, unless the 17-55 is THAT much better, but as yet I have no opinions.

I'm looking for a GOOD quality travel kit and frankly I could just use my 5D and a couple of primes, but some seem to imply the 17-55 is 'magic', but then others say that the Tamron is very good too (like me up until now)

David

The EF-S 17-55 is an L killer, and no wonder having Karl Z involved in the internal mechanics.

I wish i could afford a FF.

dhphoto wrote:

I'm considering the option of dumping 1.6 crop entirely and just using my 1D2N and full frame cameras rather than shell out for a 17-55IS. It just seems to make more sense, unless the 17-55 is THAT much better, but as yet I have no opinions.

I'm looking for a GOOD quality travel kit and frankly I could just use my 5D and a couple of primes, but some seem to imply the 17-55 is 'magic', but then others say that the Tamron is very good too (like me up until now)

David


You bring up a point that has crossed my mind regarding the 17-55 and my XT. I hear the 'magic' talk too, but from people with the 30D and 40D. Although they are crop cameras too, they do have an improved focusing system. The system on the XT is known to be somewhat less than flawless and I wonder if I would get the same great results that they get with that lens.

Well, the 5D and primes will certainly do it, as long as it fits the bill as a travel kit. For me, it's not an option. Anything bigger than the XT and one lens, could doom me on some of my hikes, especially in the dead of winter. The XT is a pocket cam next to the 5D.

Andy

I have a Tamron 17-50 and it is actually sharper than my 35mm f/2 prime.

The Xsi sensor is just so good that I would prefer to stick with the small camera size, but I am still waitng to hear a direct comparison between the two in the OP

David

David,

Here is a link (100%) to one of the images I took with 17-55 (it was actually taken at 1/15s)

http://mfurman.smugmug.com/gallery/1620835_BvUaS#156456179_ftPMV-O-LB

You can check a few test pictures taken with my copy of this lens here (no tripod):

http://mfurman.smugmug.com/Photography


Edited by mfurman on Jul 25, 2008 at 08:38 PM GMT

mfurman wrote:
David,

Here a link (100%) to one of the images I took with 17-55 (it was actually taken at 1/15s)

http://mfurman.smugmug.com/gallery/1620835_BvUaS#156456179_ftPMV-O-LB

You can check a few test pictures taken with my copy of this lens here (no tripod):

http://mfurman.smugmug.com/Photography


Thanks, looks very crisp, worth the high price?

David

I think the 17-55mm IS is worth every penny. I handhold most of the time, and I bet if you took a few shots with both lenses at less than 1/30th of a second, you'd figure out pretty quickly that the 17-55mm is a much more versatile lens.

Of course, if you aren't shooting in low light very much, the differences may not be that apparent.

Good luck!

I think that the lens is worth the price especially for those taking pictures in museums or churches. For people photography, I would chose 35 f/1.4 L. I believe that for longer focusing distances (close to infinity on the scale), 35 f/2.0 is the sharpest.

These are the only lenses, I would consider myself.

mfurman wrote:
David,

Here is a link (100%) to one of the images I took with 17-55 (it was actually taken at 1/15s)

http://mfurman.smugmug.com/gallery/1620835_BvUaS#156456179_ftPMV-O-LB

You can check a few test pictures taken with my copy of this lens here (no tripod):

http://mfurman.smugmug.com/Photography


Edited by mfurman on Jul 25, 2008 at 08:38 PM GMT

Call me crazy, but that image doesn't look very sharp.

Maybe it is the subject matter? It just looks flat and lacking in detail.

Esquire08:
Call me crazy, but that image doesn't look very sharp.

It is not my intention to extol the virtues of the lens, let alone the quality of my picture but have another look at the top-centre part of the image (viewed at 100%). Keep in mind the shutter speed (hand held).
I test my lenses routinely and the only one sharper than this one (in 35-50 mm range) is 70-200 f/4.0 L IS at 135 mm. I am only looking at performance of a lens wide open (not stopped down)

It's strange my 17-50 is sharper on my 400D and soft at 2.8 on my 40D. Have checked it's not a focus issue, more like blooming at 2.8

Dawei Ye wrote:
It's strange my 17-50 is sharper on my 400D and soft at 2.8 on my 40D. Have checked it's not a focus issue, more like blooming at 2.8

Dawei, can you provide some examples of this?

My experience is that the 17-55 IS is sharper than the 17-50, which I sold.

If your 17-50 is soft, it's either a poor copy or poor technique. I've owned a few, and each was just as sharp as my current 17-55, albeit without the flare issues or IS. here's a sample gallery I set up to when I was selling my last copy some time ago:

http://deanwcains.smugmug.com/gallery/3748495_mz8at#215589627_weFSR

Those are unsharpened imzges from my XTi, with 100% crops following each full-sized image.

The only reason I sold the 17-50 and switched to the 17-55 is that the 17-50 will never grab an image like this one (0.8 second hand-held):

You may find this comparision gallery of mine to be helpful, as it compares
many walk-around zooms in a landscape setting.
http://www.pbase.com/tswen/walkarounds

I do like the 17-55IS, but no, it's not magic, just a solid performer, whose
biggest optical weakness is a propensity to flare.

It is sharp, with good color performance.

Dawei Ye wrote:
It's strange my 17-50 is sharper on my 400D and soft at 2.8 on my 40D. Have checked it's not a focus issue, more like blooming at 2.8

As I said before, this is what I'm finding so odd, the 17-50 is cracking on my 400D, but just not so good on the 450D, which I am currently puting down to either a focusing issue on the 450D or just that the Tam can't resolve well enough for the improved sensor, it's weird.

David

I have experience of using both lenses on 350D. In absolute terms (keeping aside other factors such as IS and Price), Tamron 17-50 is optically better than EFS 17-55 with little margin. The only minor difficulty I had with Tamron 17-50 was AF accuracy (repeatability) at wide end. But I never heard about any such AF difficulty from xxD users.

In quest of ‘better’, I sold Tamron 17-50 and upgraded to EFS 17-55. I do not experience any AF difficulty with 350D+EFS 17-55 combination. And after 3-4 rounds of body-lens calibration, my new 450D+EFS 17-55 combination is also working satisfactorily. However, I never owned 450D & Tamron 17-50 together. I wish to add here that colour rendition of EFS 17-55 is not a good as my previously owned EF 17-40L.

You may try manual focusing on your 450D+EFS 17-55 combination. If it works well, you may opt for body and/ or lens calibration.

Max

Thanks, yes I'm going to try and do some live-view focusing vs af focusing tests today, but I don't have a tripod where I am so it could be tricky

David

The Tamron is sharp at 2.8 except for at the very extreme corners. This is probably due to the field curvature. I have tested these lenses against one another and there is no real-world difference in sharpness.

The Canon vignettes much more at 2.8, but it's still not horrible vignetting.

If you want to manually focus at all, get the Canon.

You honestly can't go wrong with either lens.