# 18-55 kit lens vs tamron or sigma 17-50



## theregoesjb

i see comparisons and posts all over the place for the sigma vs the tamron lens, but not much that directly compares them to the kit lens (the lens they are usually replacing).

I had planned to buy a T2i body and get either the sigma or tamron, but came across a good used deal on the camera that came with the 18-55 kit lens. I am now wondering if i would notice that much of a difference with the upgrade, it seems the main advantage of those third party lenses is the f/2.8 and maybe a better overall build quality... but how about the actual glass and image quality it produces? I have the canon 50mm 1.8 so if the f/2.8 is biggest difference i may just hold onto the kit lens.


----------



## Bo4key

Well, I've had my kit lens and T2i for a year and can't wait to upgrade it to a Tamron simply to get f/2.8 and better performance in low light. But, if you are just starting out, the kit is a great way to learn. I've been hobbying for just over a year and still think my abilities limit me more than the lens does.


----------



## MReid

Go shoot with the kit lens.
Look at the photos, if you are happy with them and they look great..no problem.

The kit lens and a 50 1.8 is a good set up for 90% of people.

A lot of people decide they hate their kit lens before even giving it a chance....most people can't tell the difference between photos taken with the kit lens vs. one of the others.

Third party 2.8 lenses are typically pretty soft until you get to f4.


----------



## jaomul

Check out Flickr for photos taken with the kit lens. Personally I think the canon IS kit lens is very good and only really limits when you need to work in low light. Sharpness and image quality are great. Also check out photos taken by Buckster in a link on a post in this canon forum also


----------



## theregoesjb

MReid said:


> A lot of people decide they hate their kit lens before even giving it a chance....most people can't tell the difference between photos taken with the kit lens vs. one of the others.



this really does seem to be the case, im surprised how many people talk about how much of a difference 'you'll see' by upgrading the kit lens. These 400-600$ lenses dont seem to show that much of a difference in image quality (if any) in the comparisons im seeing. Maybe the gap becomes noticeable in the 800-1,000$ range but that becomes a much more serious investment. I'm really glad i didn't jump into buying either of these just yet.. I may rethink using that money on a wide angle instead.

Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## MReid

If you take the kit lens, an upgrade to a $500 and then an expensive $2000 lens in the same range....put them all at F5.6 and asked someone to tell you which was which.....Very Few people could do so...assuming equal processing.


----------



## theregoesjb

some of the comparisons i found varied in how well they were done (some would compare on the same focal range but on different aperture settings which really negates the whole comparison).
These are two of the better comparisons i found googling around:

Review Sigma 10-20 (f4-5.6) vs Canon 18-55 IS (f3.5-5.6) vs Tamron 17-50 (f2.8)

Tamron 17-50 2.8 vs Canon 18-55 3.5-5.6 (kit lens) shootout


----------



## stephen.shelley

I have the T2i and 18-55 kit lens. I purchased it about two years ago and had the same idea that I would quickly upgrade to a better lens. I still have and use the 18-55 lens especially on hiking trips when I need to travel light. I primarily shoot landscapes and nature shots so I am using a smaller aperture most of the time and find the results to be good in regard to sharpness. I do find that it does have a problem with chromatic abberations in high contrast circumstances resulting in fringing of various colors at times.

I have added additional lenses to my collection but have not gotten rid of the kit lens. Many of the shots on my website were taken with the 18-55 lens.


----------



## fokker

FWIW I found the tamron 17-50 to be a very capable lens with image quality rivalling that of the very expensive canon 17-55 2.8 IS (I owned both at the same time for a while and shot some comparisons). The only drawback to the tamron was the slower and noisier (possibly less accurate) auto-focusing.

The tamron 2.8 with VC is a very versatile lens, even if you don't think the upgrade is worthwhile in terms of image quality, IMO it's worth it for the extra low-light ability.


----------



## macrodadi

fokker said:
			
		

> FWIW I found the tamron 17-50 to be a very capable lens with image quality rivalling that of the very expensive canon 17-55 2.8 IS (I owned both at the same time for a while and shot some comparisons). The only drawback to the tamron was the slower and noisier (possibly less accurate) auto-focusing.
> 
> The tamron 2.8 with VC is a very versatile lens, even if you don't think the upgrade is worthwhile in terms of image quality, IMO it's worth it for the extra low-light ability.



I agree most people won't notice the difference in pix quality. I've had the canon 18-55 kit lens and tamron 17-50 f2.8. The tamron is regarded highly. However, I was not impressed with it. The feel is too plasticky and the focus is slow. Pictures I took were consistently soft. I sold it on ebay. I wound up buying the sigma 17-50 f2.8 hsm os and have been extremely happy with it. The hypersonic motor is just about as fast as canons usm and the build quality is exceptional. I also like to shoot in natural and indoor light, so the large aperture on the sigma minimizes the times I have to use  my flash If you don't need a fast focusing lens or low light ability, I would stick with the kit lens.


----------



## iresq

I think there are two main problems with the kit lenses. 1) stigma associated with a 'kit' lens and B) many first time dslr shooters are dismayed that their pics are coming out worse that p&s.  They naturally blame it on gear. This is probably why there is a huge market in midrange glass.



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------

