Canon 18-55mm IS vs Tamron 17-50mm

[ivan2]

I am planning to bring my new Rebel XT(got it from 6ave) on a trip to SF. Since I would like a lens wider than the 28-90mm that came with it, I plan to buy a new walkabout lens.

I plan to walk around the city, seems that most of my photo will be city building, piers, and maybe seals on occasion, I am looking for a zoom lens with wide angel on the short side, while also hoping it will make the camera easier to carry. My choice is coming down to 2 lens which has good reviews in their relative price range: The Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS and the Tamron 17-50mm, both for cropped frame.

From what I understand, the build quality of the Tamron although can not compete with the L lenses, it is superior than the plastic 18-55 from Canon. But in another way, I also feel that the plastic Canon is lighter, thus more suitable for my short sight seeing trip (I had experienced the burden of a Canon AE-1 and a Tamron 28-90 zoom lens, so this time I want it light).

I want to see what you guys think it.

- Is the Canon really that flimsy (can I get a sense on how long does it last, it cost less than half of the Tamron btw...)?

- Image quality, they both have a reputation of being sharp, which one has a more usable range of sharpness?

- When not using tripod (not planning to bring anything more than a gorillapod), can the IS on Canon do enough to compensate the smaller aperture (lets put depth of field aside for now as I *think* I can probally live with less photos of the seals...)?

Thanks for your inputs =)

 

[tfinch2]

Tamron 17-50 without a doubt.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Tamron 17-50 without a doubt.

Agreed unless you're really strapped for cash. Be sure to look at the used market too. The only issue I have w/ the Tamron is it's buzzy as hell, heh.

The only reason I personally am looking at the kit IS lens.. I barely use that range.. I prefer primes, so it's a waste for me if I want a quick group shot. Even still, my priority has been put on the tokina 11-16 =P

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: ivan2

- Is the Canon really that flimsy (can I get a sense on how long does it last, it cost less than half of the Tamron btw...)?

- Image quality, they both have a reputation of being sharp, which one has a more usable range of sharpness?

- When not using tripod (not planning to bring anything more than a gorillapod), can the IS on Canon do enough to compensate the smaller aperture (lets put depth of field aside for now as I *think* I can probally live with less photos of the seals...)?

Thanks for your inputs =)

Are you doing most shooting outdoors? I don't see the reason for going with the heavy Tamron (2.14 times heavier) unless you'll encounter some low light situations.

I'd choose the Canon if it was just for this trip. I love a light set-up to use as a walk around in broad daylight. For what your shooting (buildings, piers, and maybe seals) the Canon would do great.

Unless you plan on using the Tamron as a walk around lens indoors (Museums, Weddings, indoor Sports), the Canon will do just fine.

 

[soydios]

twistedlogic summed it up nicely: the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is a good choice for a low-light standard zoom, while the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is plenty sharp at f/8 at a much lower weight.

To answer you question on durability: it's the plasticky build quality that allows for the light weight and small size. It won't last as long as a prime or fixed-aperture lens, but it shouldn't die prematurely either.

 

[ivan2]

Thanks for all the input. I was at B&H's physical store and I decided that I would man up and bought the Tamron. Then I spent the afternoon walking around the city and took pictures, and I got a lot more familiar with the XT's AF mechanism, which I am sure will help a lot in the trip (I tend to mostly use only the center focus point right now).

 

[NaOH]

tamron also if you plan to use a polarizer or do manual focusing