Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

tamron v. canon

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 8:45:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

has anyone compared the new tamron 11-18mm with the canon 10-22mm
lens? is the quality the same?

tia ... steve

More about : tamron canon

Anonymous
April 20, 2005 9:46:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <5inb6196lh6veckld0k3iikkcchv0vbpf8@4ax.com>,
<pshaw@emmet.com> wrote:

> has anyone compared the new tamron 11-18mm with the canon 10-22mm
> lens? is the quality the same?

Oh sure, buy the cheap one. (retard)
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 4:36:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

pshaw@emmet.com wrote:
> has anyone compared the new tamron 11-18mm with the canon 10-22mm
> lens? is the quality the same?
>
> tia ... steve


Try here http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php?cat=48 that might
be of help to you...

Tim
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
April 20, 2005 6:20:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:200420050546296969%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <5inb6196lh6veckld0k3iikkcchv0vbpf8@4ax.com>,
> <pshaw@emmet.com> wrote:
>
>> has anyone compared the new tamron 11-18mm with the canon 10-22mm
>> lens? is the quality the same?
>
> Oh sure, buy the cheap one. (retard)

My wasn't that helpful.

Plonk goes another prat
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 8:50:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

All right.



I only own Canon lenses since I've been able to spend that extra money the
cost. But if you don't, or choose not to, you just might be interested in
knowing what you get if you go for something like a Tamron lens. I think we
all know that they can't be just as good.



So, give Steve a hand here. Does anyone have any input about this particular
lens?
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 11:30:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

My (somewhat limited) experience is that non-original lenses appear to be a
bit slower or less accurate or noisier or heavier... compared to the Canon
lens they are competing with. Some say "a bit" is much too much, others will
live with it, and others can't notice the difference. It all comes down to
what experience you have and what you want to use the lens for.

The difference in price, though, is often big enough to well compensate for
the difference in performance. That's why Tamron, Sigma, Tokina and others
do sell quite a few lenses.

When I started with SLRs my choice was either buy a Tokina 100-300 or no
long lens at all... Not a very hard choice at that time! Since then I have
learnt lots and been able to upgrade to better equipment, but without that
first long lens I wouldn't have learned to take photos at all!
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 2:56:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:200420050546296969%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <5inb6196lh6veckld0k3iikkcchv0vbpf8@4ax.com>,
> <pshaw@emmet.com> wrote:
>
> > has anyone compared the new tamron 11-18mm with the canon 10-22mm
> > lens? is the quality the same?
>
> Oh sure, buy the cheap one. (retard)

I thought I could have expected a better class of response from you.
Looks like I was wrong.
If you feel justified in calling the OP a retard, then I feel perfectly
justified in calling you a twat.
Hannah.
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 6:01:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

pshaw@emmet.com wrote:

>has anyone compared the new tamron 11-18mm with the canon 10-22mm
>lens? is the quality the same?
>
>tia ... steve
>
>
Hi,
Is the price between two same?
Go figure. Trolling?
Tony
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 6:33:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <200420050546296969%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

>In article <5inb6196lh6veckld0k3iikkcchv0vbpf8@4ax.com>,
><pshaw@emmet.com> wrote:

>> has anyone compared the new tamron 11-18mm with the canon 10-22mm
>> lens? is the quality the same?

>Oh sure, buy the cheap one. (retard)

How little does it cost?

I bought the Tamron 90mm Di macro, instead of the Canon 100mm macro,
because it was sharper, but it also cost a little more.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 5:52:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Todd H. wrote:
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> writes:
>
>> Ben Rosengart wrote:
>>
>>> It's a reductio ad absurdum of the frequent (IMO mistaken) claims
>>> that the third-party lens makers don't make anything worth buying
>>> for anyone. Pretty topical in an "slr-systems" newsgroup.
>>> Especially compared to discussion of oh, I don't know, light
>>> airplanes.
>>
>> The number of 3rd party lenses that have any positive endorsement is
>> fairly low
>
> Mostly because the happy users of them have given up trying educate

How do you know that?

I am more than pleased with the Tamron 90 2.8 macro lens. So it's a
little noisier and a little slower to focus than the approximate
equivalent Canon. You can't see that in the images. Or if you can, it's
psychologically induced. I think.


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 9:20:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> writes:

> Todd H. wrote:
> > Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> writes:
> >
> >> Ben Rosengart wrote:
> >>
> >>> It's a reductio ad absurdum of the frequent (IMO mistaken) claims
> >>> that the third-party lens makers don't make anything worth buying
> >>> for anyone. Pretty topical in an "slr-systems" newsgroup.
> >>> Especially compared to discussion of oh, I don't know, light
> >>> airplanes.
> >>
> >> The number of 3rd party lenses that have any positive endorsement is
> >> fairly low
> >
> > Mostly because the happy users of them have given up trying educate
>
> How do you know that?

Psst. I'm on your side on this. 8-)

> I am more than pleased with the Tamron 90 2.8 macro lens.

Excellent! As well you should be. And I for one am not gonna talk ya
out of that. 8-)

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 1:55:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <84fyxj7w5x.fsf@ripco.com>,
t@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote:

>Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> writes:

>> The number of 3rd party lenses that have any positive endorsement is
>> fairly low

>Mostly because the happy users of them have given up trying educate
>the knee-jerk manufacturer brand camera yes-boy snobs that third party
>lenses just maybe have model that are a worthy point on the
>price/performance chart.

Another part of the reason is that the 3rd-party lens makers often have
a series of lenses that are very inexpensive, and also optically
inferior to Canon's cheapest line, so it has become habit for many
people to associate them with both kinds of cheapness.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 12:52:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Greg Campbell wrote:

> It is entirely on topic.

Read the charter. There is no way rhat a sceientific grade CCD sensor
and $50K Fujinon lens system is on topic here.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 5:29:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm <JPS@no.komm> wrote:

> Tamron makes lenses that are sharper than most of Canon's lenses.

Are these lenses the bulk of Tamron's offerings, or is it that
they have a few outstanding lenses --- just like Canon has a few
lenses that are better than most of their stock?

(Note that I tend to use the word better, since sharpness, while
very important, is not everything, you'll also want accurate
colours, no strong distortions, fast, light lenses with good
bokeh, and of course a low enough price ... too bad that "better"
is so subjective and budget dependend to boot.)

-Wolfgang
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 2:20:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <ap3nj2-85f.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>,
Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote:

>JPS@no.komm <JPS@no.komm> wrote:

>> Tamron makes lenses that are sharper than most of Canon's lenses.

>Are these lenses the bulk of Tamron's offerings, or is it that
>they have a few outstanding lenses --- just like Canon has a few
>lenses that are better than most of their stock?

The latter, of course. As I said in another post, all these third-party
lens makers make some very cheap, low quality lenses.

The Tamron Macros (90mm and 180mm), for example, are considered sharper
than the Canon equivalents.

They don't AF as fast and quietly as the Canons, though.

Lens color cast is not particularly relevant with digital, as it is with
film.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
April 26, 2005 4:46:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <5inb6196lh6veckld0k3iikkcchv0vbpf8@4ax.com>,
<pshaw@emmet.com> wrote:
>
>
>has anyone compared the new tamron 11-18mm with the canon 10-22mm
>lens? is the quality the same?
>

The question I think you are asking, is more along the lines of
"If my budget does not allow for an $800 Canon lens, will I be throwing
money away if I buy a certain aftermarket lens instead?"

I personally believe I would be pretty happy with this Tamron lens,
BUT, it's not as if it's 1/3 the price of the Canon 10-22. They are
in the same magnitude of price, if your breaking point is "over $500,
under $1000" or something like that.

Now, for $300, this Tamron 11-18mm would look like a great deal to me,
provided the quality is acceptable. (I'm blissfully happy with a Tamron
28-200XR, and a wide-angle equivalent would make me dance.) But it
looks like the lens is going to cost twice what I want to pay for it,
and it definitely pushes the "spend a bit more, get Canon EF" button.
April 26, 2005 4:59:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <j24e61dpl7a4fo82dgrvgvklg9btbs4ohc@4ax.com>, <JPS@no.komm> wrote:

>>> has anyone compared the new tamron 11-18mm with the canon 10-22mm
>>> lens? is the quality the same?
>
>>Oh sure, buy the cheap one. (retard)
>
>How little does it cost?

The Tamron lens being discussed, is supposed to have a MSRP of $900, and
is listed on B&H at $569.

At this price level, it needs to be a very good lens, because we're not
talking about a super cheap aftermarket price point here.

Nothing that sells for $600 is entitled to the appellation "cheap",
especially when comparing it to the "expensive" $800 alternative.

The Tamron lens may indeed have attributes that make it more attractive
to some people than the EF-S lens. I personally don't like the MF ring
on EF-S lenses I've tried (not just the kit lens).
April 26, 2005 5:02:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <kQD9e.1084178$Xk.55991@pd7tw3no>,
Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>pshaw@emmet.com wrote:
>
>>has anyone compared the new tamron 11-18mm with the canon 10-22mm
>>lens? is the quality the same?
>>
>>tia ... steve
>>
>>
>Hi,
>Is the price between two same?

It's close enough that the question seems reasonable, and not at all
trollish.

Certainly if I'm looking at a $600 Tamron alternative to a $750 Canon,
I'm going to wonder the same thing. It might actually be a good deal.
But I don't think the answer to pshaw's question is out there, since
it appears that nobody except maybe magazine reviewers has this lens
yet anyway.

I'm interested. I don't have any delusions about it being "the same" as
any other, or "better than EF-S", but if it's a good lens and a good
value, I'm highly interested.
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 2:00:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <Pqgbe.83566$A31.67838@fed1read03>,
fishbowl@conservatory.com (james) wrote:

>I'm interested. I don't have any delusions about it being "the same" as
>any other, or "better than EF-S"

That's not completely outside the realm of possibilities; Tamron and
Sigma both make some lenses that are optically superior to Canon's
similar offerings.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
!