Tamron 17 50 vs Canon 18 55 is


Tamron 17 50 vs Canon 18 55 is

Tamron 17 50 vs Canon 18 55 is

[do_widget Text]

Introduction – Tamron 17 50 vs Canon 18 55 is

Interesting comparison to compare the kit lens to a Tamron 17 50 (non VC). Why ? I thought because many beginner photographer thought about that question, and search for answers is it worth to pay 3-4 times the price for a lens that is very similar than the kit lens provided perhaps in the kit. The answer is perhaps different for anybody. The main issue here, how much is your budget. I would not recommend to spend money above your budget. Is it not worth to have a loan or asking money above your financial potential for buying a lens.

For Nikon users this question can be perhaps Nikon 18 55 vs Tamron 17 50 or Nikon 18 105 vs Tamron 17 50.

First question what the kit lens is:

Kit lens is a cheap (very important for selling reasons) usually reduced contrast and colour lens, with moderate sharpness and not so serious build quality. It is interesting that according to Nikon 90 percent of their customers never replace the kit lens with anything else.

[do_widget Text]

Resolution and other optical qualities compared

Actually if someone check sites like photozone.de where they scientifically test lenses, it came out that for example the Canon 18 55 is kit lens has excellent resolution even better that some of the more expensive products. In our case in some apertures the Canon 18 55 is has better resolution than the Tamron 17 50 f2.8 on a small megapixel 350D body.

I guess on a 20 Mpix Canon 70d the Tamron is much better. But resolution doesn’t tell the whole story. Actually the resolution of the Canon and the Tamron are quite close to each other. I had the Canon lens and used it after bought the Tamron and doesn’t regret the change, in fact I don’t want to go back.

But not the f2.8 aperture what is the main difference in my point of view, I mostly use the Tamron for landscapes, and the lens is not so sharp at f2.8 as I would like to. The Canon is very sharp at f3.5 at the wide end.

Especially the contrast and the colours of the Tamron is much better. The Tamron is a very good lens, optically on a Crop body is better than the Canon 24 70 L or 24 105 is for example. If the three lens would have the same price for a crop body I wouldn’t change the Tamron for the Canons.

Currently I have a 24 105 but I prefer Tamron most of the times. The Canon 18 55 is a very good lens though: the resolution of the Canon lens is exceptional, and has much better price/performance ratio. If we make some post processing perhaps the difference between the two lens is not big, the autofocus, which is much quieter and faster than the Tamron’s and a stabilizer is a clear advantage of the Canon.

In bright sunlight the Canon has flare problems, the Tamron is much better. Certainly the built quality of Tamron is better, but that is not the real difference from my point of view I mainly concentrate on optical qualities. The Tamrons long end is better than the Canons, but I mostly use the wide end of the lens.

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

 Posted by at 9:52 am