Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Is the glass difference between these two lenses really remarkable?

I

igmolinav

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Aug 15, 2005
1,126
4
There are no EF-S L lenses. It's that simple. Optically the 17-55 lens you linked to is as good as a L lens but as it's not full-frame compatible it's not one.
 
You just got hung up on a marketing scheme: Canon never blesses lenses for crop sensors with the red L.

The 17-55 mm is optically excellent and probably the difference in construction (high-quality plastics vs. a lot of metal) account for a large chunk of the price difference already. The 17-55 mm is optically excellent, has a large initial aperture and IS. If you have a crop sensor camera and need a normal focal length range of 28~70 mm full frame equivalent, it's the best lens.

Third-party lenses never get the L badge, even though there are some lenses that rival or best what Canon puts out (ditto for Nikon and Sony lenses, for instance).
 
optically they are comparable. the 17-55 is usually the better choice because it has the more useful focal length range.
 
The focal lengths are completely different so I'm not quite sure that any comparison is hugely helpful, unless you're debating between, for example, a 5D2 + 24-105/4L vs. 7D + 17-55/2.8

I previously owned a 40D and 17-55/2.8, and that lens took great photos. But I always missed the 50/1.4 views I used to shoot on my film camera, so about a year ago I sold that combo and replaced it with a 5D2 and 24-105.

Overall the 5D2+24-105 combo is better. The image quality is higher, although I can't tell you how much of that is camera and how much of that is lens. The 24-105 is water-sealed, if that matters to you. The 24mm on full frame is noticeably wider than 17mm on 1.6x crop frame. 105mm is longer than 55mm x1.6. f/4 is obviously slower than f/2.8, but I have a 50/1.4 for when I'm needing more light.

Edit: sorry I completely misread the link, you were talking about the 24-70/2.8, but still the focal lengths are really different!
 
Last edited:
Hi,

Thank you for your posts : ) !!!

I am still saving for my gear. However, if I happen
to buy any of the two lenses, I feel more attracted
to using the the f/2.8 lenses, in spite of their shor-
ter focal lengths.

Very kind regards,

igmolinav.
 
Designer Dale said:
Hi.
Tamron makes good lenses at great prices. The quality is less than L and more than kit.
Click to expand...

^

The Tamron 28-75mm is an amazingly sharp lens, don't let the lack of Canon name put you off, it's an excellent performer.
It's also a lot cheaper than the Canon...
 
Last edited:
Hi,

Thank you for your posts again : ) !!!

Lens rental is a cool website : ) !!!

Kind regards,

igmolinav.

P.S. When you say:
Tamron makes good lenses at great prices.
The quality is less than L and more than kit.
Click to expand...
Does "kit" refer to the lens that belongs to the camera brand ??
If so, do you mean that the Tamron 17-50 mm. f/2.8 does better
than the non-"L" Canon lens 17-55 mm. f/2.8 ??
 
igmolinav said:
Does "kit" refer to the lens that belongs to the camera brand ??
If so, do you mean that the Tamron 17-50 mm. f/2.8 does better
than the non-"L" Canon lens 17-55 mm. f/2.8 ??
Click to expand...

Dale can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that he was referring to "kit" as the kit lens that sometimes comes bundled with camera bodies. With canon crop bodies that lens is most often the ef-s 18-55 IS.

I found the Tamron 17-50 to be fairly similar in performance to the Canon 17-55. The IS system was a little louder on the tamron and the Canon has faster / quieter USM focusing and definitely has a leg up in build quality. Optically they were quite similar, with the Tamron maybe having a slight edge. I ended up purchasing the Tamron as a birthday present for my girlfriend, and I think I made the right choice. That said, I may have just gotten a ringer of a Tamron or the Canon I was testing it against may have been a dud. For that reason I would highly recommend testing the lenses at a local camera shop and coming to your own conclusions.

I own the Tamron 28-75 as well. It's the last lens in my kit that I need to "convert" to L. I think that says a lot about the Tamron's image quality. The only reason I'm considering upgrading is for the 24-70 2.8 L's faster autofocus and weather proofing. Optically both lenses are fantastic performers. The Tamron also weighs a lot less than the canon version, which is often overlooked.
 
Back in March I was deciding between the same two lenses and decided on the 24-70mm. The 17-55mm had been known in the past to have IS failure, which I could not accept given its price. The good news there is that the reliability of the 17-55mm appears to have improved dramatically this year. Based on the annualized repair rates from lensrentals.com, the repair rate for the 17-55mm is 7.7% this year compared to 20-29% for previous years. At the time I made my purchasing decision, all I knew about were the higher failure rates...

I liked that the 24-70mm could be used on either a full-frame or crop camera body, making it a little more "future proof". Here is a side-by-side comparison of the two lenses. I think the 17-55mm looks slightly softer than the 24-70mm at equivalent focal lengths and apertures. While I find the focal length range on the 24-70mm to be very versatile (even on a crop camera body), there are still times that I switch over to a 10-22mm. I have a feeling I would not have needed two lenses if I had just gone with the 17-55mm.

Those have been my experiences. Best of luck with your decision!
 
panoz7 said:
Dale can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that he was referring to "kit" as the kit lens that sometimes comes bundled with camera bodies. With canon crop bodies that lens is most often the ef-s 18-55 IS.

I found the Tamron 17-50 to be fairly similar in performance to the Canon 17-55. The IS system was a little louder on the tamron and the Canon has faster / quieter USM focusing and definitely has a leg up in build quality. Optically they were quite similar, with the Tamron maybe having a slight edge. I ended up purchasing the Tamron as a birthday present for my girlfriend, and I think I made the right choice. That said, I may have just gotten a ringer of a Tamron or the Canon I was testing it against may have been a dud. For that reason I would highly recommend testing the lenses at a local camera shop and coming to your own conclusions.

I own the Tamron 28-75 as well. It's the last lens in my kit that I need to "convert" to L. I think that says a lot about the Tamron's image quality. The only reason I'm considering upgrading is for the 24-70 2.8 L's faster autofocus and weather proofing. Optically both lenses are fantastic performers. The Tamron also weighs a lot less than the canon version, which is often overlooked.
Click to expand...
^^ Yes in regards to "kit". The plastic lens that comes with the camera.

Dale
 
Second you there....

Designer Dale said:
Hi.

Lens Rental is a good place to look at lenses. They offer specs and an opinion/review. You can rent the lenses to compare them if it gets down to that.

Here are links for their reviews.

17-55

24-70

Tamron makes good lenses at great prices. The quality is less than L and more than kit.

Tamron 17-50 2.8

Tamron 28-75 2.8

Dale
Click to expand...

But with Tamron rebates and a 6 year warranty there should be little worry...
 
TheReef said:
^

The Tamron 28-75mm is an amazingly sharp lens, don't let the lack of Canon name put you off, it's an excellent performer.
It's also a lot cheaper than the Canon...
Click to expand...

And so the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. A shorter and wider lens, but quite good nevertheless. I have a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 that is quite good, too.

The Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro is another non-L lens that has excellent glass.
 
Hi,

Thank you : ) !!! Nice lenses! I tried the 11-16 mm.
the other day.

Kind regards,

igmolinav
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back