photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
lightrules | profile | all galleries >> Lens Tests by LightRules >> Wide-Standard Zoom Test tree view | thumbnails | slideshow

Wide-Standard Zoom Test

Thursday Dec 6 2007: Tested here are TEN lenses, most of which fall into the wide-standard zoom category for APS-C bodies.

Throughout this test, the following letters (A-J) are used to refer to a specific lens. It will be helpful to either memorize which letters signify which lens or to write the list down on a piece of paper:
A = Tokina 12-24 F4 AT-X PRO DX
B = Tokina 16-50 F2.8 AT-X PRO DX
C = Tamron 17-50 F2.8 SP XR Di-II
D = Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS USM
E = Canon 18-55 F3.5-5.6 IS
F = Sigma 18-200 F3.5-6.3 OS DC
G = Canon 24-105 F4 L IS USM
H = Tamron 28-75 F2.8 SP XR Di
I = Sigma 30 F1.4 EX DC HSM
J = Sigma 50 F2.8 EX DG MACRO

Test Comments:
*Lenses H, I, and J are only tested sparingly; consider them "bonus" inclusions.
*The two most "interesting" lenses in this test, at least for me, were B and E. I am well familiar with the other lenses, but I had yet to even touch/handle these two lenses prior to this comparison.
*Remember that every lens can (and often does) perform differently at varying focal lengths (and subject distances). So just because a lens is superb at the wide end does not mean it will be the same at its longest FL, especially vis-a-vis the other lenses (realizing they all can vary). This is why testing at various focal lengths is important in gaining an overall assessment of a given lens' optical performance.
*For my specific comments, see each test page and also my "Summary & Closing Words".
The Lenses
The Lenses 		The Weigh-In
The Weigh-In 		18mm
18mm 		24mm
24mm
30mm
30mm 		50mm
50mm 		E versus F
E versus F 		Bokeh
Bokeh
Flare
Flare 		Field of View I
Field of View I 		Field of View II
Field of View II 		Summary & Closing Words
Summary & Closing Words

comment | share
Guest 07-Jan-2009 15:54
I just got the 18-55 IS, and while the IS is going on, I hear a high pitched noise coming from the lens when I put my ear against it. It's reminiscent of the sound you hear when your ears are ringing.

Before any of you say that your copy is dead silent, I ask you to let someone really young listen to it. Why? Because I have a ringtone on my cell phone that is a high pitched sound. I am 21, and people around my age and younger can hear the ringtone, but older people cannot. This is especially useful in the classroom when I get a call or text message, and the teacher cannot hear it. I blast the sound on my computer to my parents and they can't hear it.

I'm wondering this noise is normal for my lens, so please give your younger son or daughter or any other kid/teenager a listen, and find out if your lens is making the noise

...please. kthxbai

P.S. My lens says Made In Japan, and my friend's doesn't. His doesn't seem to have the high pitched noise but rather the movement of the gyroscope in the barrel (the noise IS usually makes).
lightrules21-May-2008 06:07
If you can get the 1755, that is my top pick. It's hard to beat ring USM, FTM, IS, and this level of IQ. That said, the Tamron is my "best buy" lens and optically excellent. IMO it comes down to whether the price difference is worth it to you. And only you can decide that. Best wishes.
Guest 21-May-2008 05:34
Hi! :)
I was just wondering what your opinion on the Tamron 17-50 vs the Canon 17-55 is. I know you write that the Canon is the 'cream of the crop', but I was wondering if the price difference is actually worth what you get above the Tamron? Also, I've heard that the Canon has IS issues as well as dust accumulation issues... Have you heard anything about this??

Great tests by the way! :)
lightrules02-May-2008 16:26
Sam, well it depends on what kind of portraiture you want to shoot. I personally prefer a 30mm and 85mm (or 100mm) combo over the 50mm FOV on an APS-C body. Also the Sigma is the optically superior lens. But really you should decide based on what focal length you need most.
Sam 02-May-2008 08:56
Hi Lightrules
I'm using CANON 400D still study level in DSLR ,I only have one SIGMA 17-70 F/2.8-4.5
I want to buy a new one for portrait
1) Canon 50mm f/1.4 around USD345.00
2) Sigma 30mm f/1.4 around USD385.00
which one is suitable for me..
Thank
Sam
From Hong Kong
Guest 16-Mar-2008 21:53
Thanks a lot

Steve
lightrules16-Mar-2008 15:37
Steve, I would recommend to you the Tokina 16-50 F2.8 and the Canon 24-105 L IS. That's a nice two-lens combo. You could substitute the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 for the Tokina to save a little money too. Enjoy.
Guest 16-Mar-2008 13:38
Hi Again,

If I'm using Canon 400D, should I get Tokina 16-50, Tamron 18-50 or Canon 17-40L. I'm not planning to get FF camera.

What would be the best combo (Tokina 16-50 & Canon 24-105L), (Tamron 17-50 & Canon 24-105L) or (Canon 17-40L & Sigma 18-200 OS)

Thanks heaps
Steve
Guest 16-Mar-2008 13:14
Hi There,

I'm thinking to get Sigma 18-200, also what's the other lens should I get to accompany the sigma, I'm thinking to get Canon 17-40L for its wide angle. I'm using 400D canon.

Thanks
John Small Photography09-Feb-2008 02:55
Well done comparison. I choose the Tokina because I'm using it on a Nikon body, and its fit and finish is comparable. As you say it is a joy to use. CA, as you noted, is its obvious shortcoming, esp purple fringing which cannot be dramatically improved in post compared to other types of CA. Otherwise, I give this lens a stellar rating, and a better 'value' over the comparable Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 that sells for double its price. When it came to Canon I easily choose the 17-55 f/2.8 IS which, as you also point out, is the field winner. I tried the Tamron on a Nikon body and its optical performance was ok, but ... the noise and feel put me off. Otherwise there is alos not much doubt it should make everyone's short list. I also commend you on the breath of the tests. You have including enough lenses to provide a good perspective.
Jay Hodgson 17-Dec-2007 03:10
You're probably right. I normally test my lenses in more "real world" settings rather than shooting signs or newspapers. When I did so, I couldn't tell much difference between the Canon 18-55 and the Tamron 17-50 in terms of sharpness. Had I shot newspapers, I might have noticed a difference. I think this may be consistent with your findings of the Canon being good in normal shooting.
lightrules17-Dec-2007 02:37
Hi Jay, it's entirely possible that the 1855IS copy used was not up to par. In basic shooting around, I thought the IQ was quite nice actually. It doesn't "act" like a "bad copy" in normal shooting. Low light AF seems quirky with it though...hit and miss. Anyway, I still consider the lens a good buy. Thanks for the comments.
Jay Hodgson 17-Dec-2007 02:14
Wonderful test. Thanks for doing all that. I'm sure your results are 100% reflective of the gear you tested. However, I wonder a bit if you got a less-than-perfect copy of the Canon 18-55 IS. I own it. I'm also sure that it's nowhere in the same league as the Canon 17-55 IS, but I previously owned the Tamron 17-50. I sold it because I couldn't live with some of the auto-focus quirks. I tested my 18-55 IS against my Tamron, and the results were quite shocking. The Canon's sharpness was extremely close to that of the Tamron. I considered my Tamron to be an excellent copy. Perhaps your copy of the 18-55 IS is just a bit off. I think it should have performed sharper than it did.

Thanks again for the fine test.
Guest 09-Dec-2007 14:02
While slightly off-topic, I disagree with Tom. Distortion, CA, colors, and contrast can all be corrected after the fact. Sharpness can be faked, but you can't get back details that never existed.
Guest 08-Dec-2007 07:35
Excellent review. I was one of the early adopters of the Tokina 16-50 in Canon mount, and I am pleased to see how it performed. Of note, however, is how well that all of the 2.8 lenses performed, and I think one could be happy with any of them. For me, the extra 2 mm on the wide end and the build quality sold me on the Tokina.

Regards,

MillCreek
lightrules08-Dec-2007 04:57
Mark, the 18-50 EX Macro is an excellent optic. Compared to the 17-50 Di-II, I'd say they are very close optically given properly-calibrated and functioning copies. Personally I would go with the Tamron myself between the two, primarily because of the Tamron's extra wideness (a true 17mm versus the EX's 18.5-19mm). Either one is a very good option though, but I prefer the Di-II.
Mark 08-Dec-2007 04:30
Lightrules,
Great comparison!
How do you feel the Tamron 17-50 compares to the Sigma 18-50 (preferably macro version if you've used it). I've heard such mixed responses to this question, and was wondering what you think.
Tom Yi 07-Dec-2007 20:41
Absolute sharpness is over rated to me as well. Optically speaking, close focusing ability, contrast, colors, CA and flare control, and low distortion, are just as important if not more. Shooting RAW and then processing would probably eliminate any sharpness difference in real world prints in my view among these lenses.

Yup once again, surprised by how close the sharpness is among these lenses.
lightrules07-Dec-2007 15:41
Well, one thing I think I'm seeing is that maybe sharpness is overrated ;-) Actually the 1855 IS and 18200 OS really do impress considering the former's price and the latter's range.
Tom Yi 07-Dec-2007 06:49
Wow, lots of work for this one. I think the Tokina 16-50 tends to be slightly softer at f2.8 and have a touch more CA than the Tamron and Tokina.

But considering that these are unprocessed shots at 100% crop, I'm actually more surprised by how close they are. Especially the Canon 18-55IS, which represents the extreme low end of the price range and the Sigma 18-200 which represents the most extreme focal range.

Nice work.

Thanks for your work.
lightrules07-Dec-2007 05:09
Hi Brian, I only posted this about 1 hour ago and here you are ;-) I'm glad it's completed; however, I am still going to do some more thorough testing on the new 18-55 IS (E) just to be sure. Thanks for the comments.
Fabrian 07-Dec-2007 05:03
Excellent review Jojo! I've been waiting for you to finish this up as I almost put my 17-50 up for sale to help fund the 17-55. I still don't care for it's occasional "thinking" about focus and having a wide standard zoom with "IS" has been very tempting. Aside from my feelings about the Tammy's focus consistency and low light focus performance, I think it's a great lens, if only for it's sharpness alone. It's a shame the 17-55 exhibits flare like that; could be a real turn off to some.

Thanks again friend, excellent work :)
click on thumbnails for full image