Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS vs. Tamron 17-50 2.8

[shutterfiend]

I already have the Tamron. Wondering if it's worth spending more than twice as much for the Canon. Does the IS make a lot of difference at those focal lengths? Is CA significantly better controlled? Thanks in advance.

[timbop]

If you already have the tammy, do you find that you need slower shutter speeds than 1/fl, or does the CA bother you enough? I think the 17-55 is probably an awesome lens, but if you are happy with the tammy you might want to look at other focal lengths you don't have covered to your satisfaction. I think you are going to have to make this decision for yourself, to be honest.

[bowlesbe]

I have the tamron and I would be more inclined to get the canon because of the focus speed in low light and the quality of the bokeh which is apparnetly much nicer on the canon.

I wouldnt care so much for the IS... hardly ever do i have a hard time getting a sharp picture with the tamron, unless its of people, in which IS is only so useful anyways.

the tamron makes a better travel lens cause its smaller and lighter

[bowlesbe]

PLUS: aparnetly glare is a bit of an issue as wel with the canon; hardly at all with the tamron.

consider that you might be able to get away without a hood in many circumstnasces with the tamron you cant with the canon

[DerekI]

I already have the Tamron. Wondering if it's worth spending more than twice as much for the Canon. Does the IS make a lot of difference at those focal lengths? Is CA significantly better controlled? Thanks in advance.

The Canon has produced more CA and more seriously Vignetting problem than Tamron .

But at the very edge or coner , the Canon is sharper and the color of the Canon is better than the Tamron color.

But if you wanna throw a grand , then get an L ,all L lenses can be mounted on a FF.

Also, the 17-55IS is haevy and collect alot of dust even in 3 days.

That said ,it is an amazingly sharp lens( comparable to most of L's if not shaper ) ,with horrible build quality and ergonomics for the hefty price tag.

[syntrix]

Hands down, the canon. I have never had a glare issue and I shoot a lot in the harsh afternoon sun. Regardless of the lens, I always shoot with the hood on.

The vignetting that people mention is just like any other L lens on a FF, such as the 24-70. But that's at 17mm and usually only wide open.

There's usually two types of people that comment on the 17-55. Those that have it, and the majority love it..... and then there's those that don't have it and are usually quick to make negative comments based some other review.

[sootyvrs]

I went from Tamron to Canon with no regrets.

I was impressed with the Tamron when it focused right but after 2 copies with inconsistent focusing, it had to go!

One downside with the Canon is that you have to zoom to >28mm for use of built in flash on my 20D which is a little frustrating where as no such problems for the much smaller Tamron.

The Canon very rarely gets it wrong in the focusing dept and the IS is amazing! I now get shots handheld that I wouldn't even atempt with the Tamron down to 1/8th at 55mm!

PS I purchased the hood but only used it once and decided it was too big. I have taken 1000+ pics since without the hood with no flare issues although I am careful where I point the lens.

[timbop]

There's usually two types of people that comment on the 17-55. Those that have it, and the majority love it..... and then there's those that don't have it and are usually quick to make negative comments based some other review.

You missed the third group: those that think it is a fantastic lens, but a lens whose pricetag and/or long term value are enough to stop them from buying it now. If I knew for sure that canon will make prosumer EF-S dslrs over the long term AND I already have all the other lenses I want, then I will likely get the 17-55. The problem is that I had some other FL's where there wasn't an equivalent and inexpensive 3rd party alternative, so I blew my cash on L's there. I am still not quite done, but once I get my 85 and 1Dm2, then I will probably come back to the 17-55. Yes, I would keep the 20D/17-55 combo because it is a great travel kit.

[Southswede]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=398&Camera=396&LensComp=400


This was a surprise....

[timbop]

Oh, and a fourth large group: those who don't ever want to spend a $1000 on a single lens.