Printable View
Anybody owned both and care to share their opinions? I'm looking to swap out my Tamron 18-270 to one of these two lenses. Leaning towards the 15-85 because I know smokan swears by them, but it would be nice to have the constant aperture of the Tamron.
I guess I don't need to comment then. ;)
The constant aperture is obviously the biggest draw of the Tamron. If you absolutely need it, then IMO it's the lens you want. However, if constant aperture is not a necessity, then the 15-85mm lens is better in every other way (range, focus speed, IQ) and on a crop body, is invaluable for skiing and landscape shooting. The utility and quality of this lens is honestly one of the reasons I haven't switched over to full frame.
Here's a shot where I was following Powtron darting in and out of the aspens, coming downhill towards me pretty fast. With my 50D on AI Servo and using this lens, I can't remember the last time I missed focus.
http://www.stevemokanphotography.com...eek12-15-L.jpg
I had an old really beat up Tammy that had seen much better days but still gave me some great shots. The electronic connector deal seems to have fallen out so I have stopped using it (only paid $100 for it) and now use a 10-22 which I like better. I didn't think the colors popped with it as much as with my Canon lenses but I took some cool shots with it. Mine wasn't super sharp at 2.8 but I think that might have had as much to do with its condition as anything. It is super lightweight so great for hiking and skiing. Had this one printed at 10x12 and it looks awesome.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8072/8...c838faae_b.jpg
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3463/5...67c7bfaf_b.jpg
Different lenses for different purposes, IMO.
Tamron is better for shooting urban and portraits due to f/2.8 (by the way it's a touch soft until f/3.5, and razor sharp at f/4 ... I try not to shoot below 3.2 unless I absolutely need that extra touch of shutter speed).
Canon is better for moving subjects with blazing fast USM AF and longer reach. Canon is bigger and heavier. IS can make up for low light. You have to cheat to get shallow DOF by using a longer lens length, which is going to be fine most of the time unless you need wide angle and shallow DOF. I think that the Canon is a better lens overall: construction, IQ, color, autofocus, IS ... but it's not F/2.8.
I'd say:
-budget portrait lens for shooting F&F and urban use, go for the Tamron
-single lens for outdoor adventure, go for the Canon
It sounds like the Canon is probably the lens for me, which is sort of what I was thinking. Not a lot of 'urban' to shoot in Crested Butte.
I picked up a Tam 17-50 non-is and could not get it to calibrate on my 7D. I use Focal to MA all my lenses and every one worked except the Tammy. Off to Ebay it goes, maybe it will work better for someone else.
In my quest for smallish, light and fast AF I followed Smokan's recommendation and got a 15-85 and it is working perfectly. I may sell my 17-55 soon if the 15-85 meets my needs. I'll give up the constant 2.8, but get a better build IMO and similar IQ.
Lighthawk- depending on your use, it might be a better idea to sell the 17-55mm for a couple of fast primes. Something like the Sigma 30mm 1.4 and Canon 85mm 1.8 might compliment the 15-85mm nicely.
That's basically what I'm doing... I just bought the Sigma 30mm 1/4 and the Canon 60mm 2.8 Macro and I'm digging them so far.