Trade Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for Canon 17-55 IS F/2.8

[biggpopa]

I'm just wondering what you guyes think. I'm going to sell a few things I have, and have some extra money left over for a new lens. I like my Tamron, but just can't get over the fact of wanting a Canon lens. SO, here is my dilema, do I sell my Tammy, and pay to get the Canon 17-55 IS F/2.8? Is IQ going to amaze be from switching from the Tammy to the Canon?

OR, would you go with the 24-70 f/2.8L or 24-105L.

What are you guys' opinion. I did some searches, but still left me without an answer.

Thanks again!

Shaq

[condyk]

I could have any of them but I do choose to have the 24-105mm ... Best all rounder for how and what I shoot. But you have a 30D, so I would then have one of the EF-s 17mm lenses. If you hanker for the Canon then get it, but don't expect to have your socks blown off. The Tamron is very decent.

[Permagrin]

I'm just wondering what you guyes think. I'm going to sell a few things I have, and have some extra money left over for a new lens. I like my Tamron, but just can't get over the fact of wanting a Canon lens. SO, here is my dilema, do I sell my Tammy, and pay to get the Canon 17-55 IS F/2.8? Is IQ going to amaze be from switching from the Tammy to the Canon?

OR, would you go with the 24-70 f/2.8L or 24-105L.

What are you guys' opinion. I did some searches, but still left me without an answer.

Thanks again!

Shaq

No, the IQ isn't going to be much different. The tamron is an excellent lens in it's own right. You'll have to decide if buying "IS" or the canon name is worth all the extra $.

[foghorn]

No, the IQ isn't going to be much different. The tamron is an excellent lens in it's own right. You'll have to decide if buying "IS" is worth all the extra $.
Comments like these make me wonder if people actually shot with both.

[Permagrin]

Comments like these make me wonder if people actually shot with both.

actually yes. My husband has the tamron 17-50, I've owned the 24-70L and currently own the 24-105L. The tamron is an excellent lens that compares VERY well to all my current zooms. I've owned/shot with most of the canon lineup and some of the tamron and do not offer an opinion unless I've used the equipment.

[august23]

actually yes. My husband has the tamron 17-50, I've owned the 24-70L and currently own the 24-105L. The tamron is an excellent lens that compares VERY well to all my current zooms. I've owned/shot with most of the canon lineup and some of the tamron and do not offer an opinion unless I've used the equipment.


Not knocking on you but the 17-55 is sharper than all 3 of those. I've shot with all 4.

[biggpopa]

Comments like these make me wonder if people actually shot with both.

Sometimes I wonder this too. I see so many people say buy a Canon lens, but then I hear comments that say 3rd party lens are great as well....hence my confusion.

I guess if I'm happy with the Tammy I should keep it, but there are times that I think that the IS may help me....my hands aren't that steady.

[foghorn]

Sometimes I wonder this too. I see so many people say buy a Canon lens, but then I hear comments that say 3rd party lens are great as well....hence my confusion.

I guess if I'm happy with the Tammy I should keep it, but there are times that I think that the IS may help me....my hands aren't that steady.
I made that comment because the above suggested IS was the only reason there is a difference in price.

[Permagrin]

I made that comment because the above suggested IS was the only reason there is a difference in price.

actually, that's exactly what I was suggesting. I think that tamron is an excellent lens.

Bigpoppa, I use IS lenses mostly because my hands do shake. I find it's worth it to buy them. Only you can decide if it will be worth it to you.

[nicksan]

If you feel that IS is important to you, then you don't have much choice.

@50mm you can theoretically handhold the 17-55IS at 1/10 or less. (non-action shots, all that stuff apply...)

Yes, people don't stay still, but then again not all photogs shoot people. I'm one of them, so the IS definitely appealed to my style.

The ring USM AF is fast, it's a f2.8 lens with IS...that was it for me. (well...until I moved to the 5D and had to sell the lens!)

[RichNY]

Considering your kit I'd spend the money on either a 10-22 or 70-300 rather than upgrading what you already own.

[biggpopa]

Well, I think I do need the IS. I thought my hands were steady, but I find I do have a bit of a shake, and think IS is the way to go. So, I guess it's basically deciding if I want the 17-55 or the 24-105. I'm not sure if the wide angle part makes a difference, as I don't shoot too much landscape...more people...outdoor events, work parties etc..

I like the range of the 24-105, but wonder if the f/2.8 on the 17-55 might be better for me.

[Woolburr]

Comments like these make me wonder if people actually shot with both.

Having shot both...I can tell you that the Tamron is right up there IQ wise. The biggest advantage the Canon offers is IS...which may or may not be that big a deal on a wide angle lens. For people with less than unlimited budgets, the Tamron is one of the best pieces of glass available. I don't know too many people that have been disappointed with it...unless it happens to be those folks more interested in collecting the big bucks glass and not actually taking pictures.

It is comments like yours that make me wonder if you are a recent graduate from the Ken Rockwell troll academy.

[biggpopa]

Considering your kit I'd spend the money on either a 10-22 or 70-300 rather than upgrading what you already own.

I agree, I'm getting the 70-200L soon, and want to add the 10-22, but don't shoot very much at the wide angle, so I'm not sure if that is something I would add now. I'm basically doing alot of outdoor festivals, a friends wedding reception, and some indoor office parties this summer.

[foghorn]

Having shot both...I can tell you that the Tamron is right up there IQ wise. The biggest advantage the Canon offers is IS...which may or may not be that big a deal on a wide angle lens. For people with less than unlimited budgets, the Tamron is one of the best pieces of glass available. I don't know too many people that have been disappointed with it...unless it happens to be those folks more interested in collecting the big bucks glass and not actually taking pictures.

It is comments like yours that make me wonder if you are a recent graduate from the Ken Rockwell troll academy.
Nice flaming there buddy. Keep the comments to yourself. I have tried two copies of the Tamron, and IS wasn't that important to me. However, fast accurate AF was. I thought it was very poor of Tamron to introduce a new lens that took a step backward in AF. Seriously, I am a big fan of the 28-75. I thought the AF was fine for a non USM type motor. Then I get the 17-50, and I was shocked at the loud whirring it made. It reminded me of my old Sigma 70-300. And that lens I got in 1996. Ten years later, you would think almost all lenses would be quiet by now.
I am not a Canon purists. I own a Sigma, and if I went FF, a 28-75 would be in my camera bag again.

[Woolburr]

Not knocking on you but the 17-55 is sharper than all 3 of those. I've shot with all 4.

And we are supposed to take this as relevant testimony? You haven't had the same gear in your hand for over 5 minutes since you joined the forum. Sorry lady...I'm not buying it.:lol:

[Woolburr]

Nice flaming there buddy. Keep the comments to yourself. I have tried two copies of the Tamron, and IS wasn't that important to me. However, fast accurate AF was. I thought it was very poor of Tamron to introduce a new lens that took a step backward in AF. Seriously, I am a big fan of the 28-75. I thought the AF was fine for a non USM type motor. Then I get the 17-50, and I was shocked at the loud whirring it made. It reminded me of my old Sigma 70-300. And that lens I got in 1996. Ten years later, you would think almost all lenses would be quiet by now.
I am not a Canon purists. I own a Sigma, and if I went FF, a 28-75 would be in my camera bag again.

The little noise the Tammy makes is minor compared to the sewing machine sounds from hell emitted by most Sigma stuff...not to mention a couple of Canon's lower end offerings...like a certain 28mm that is known as the buzzsaw. I don't know where you get off equating Image Quality to focusing mechanism noise...but the two are totally irrelevant to each other. Trollin' trollin' trollin'...keep the nonsense rollin'.

[august23]

It doesn't take more than 5 seconds to see if a lens is sharp. And I've had all 4, 3 of which I had for months. The tamron I got wasn't very good. Sharp, but noisy AF, stiff zoom, and really terrible AF in lowlight. The 24-70 is vivid in color (love flourite), really nice range, but is not as sharp as the 17-55. Colors I can get back, sharpness I can't. The 24-105 seems like a terrible choice to me on a crop, but I never had one on a crop. On the 5D it's awesome. IS + f/4 + clean ISO 3200 = very decent low light lens. And that is why I again said the 17-55 is the sharpest of the 4. I never said I have years of experience with each lens. but ive shot enough with them to know whats better than what. (plus 3 copies of the 17-55, 2 copies of the 24-70, my least sharp copy of the 17-55 was sharper than my most sharp copy of my 24-70)

[sadowsk2]

With all due respec to August 23, I too shot with the EF-S 17-55 and the 24-70 and found the 24-70 was sharper and produced more vibrant colors. However this was limited to shooting a couple of pics with each lens on my 30D at B&H and then going back to my hotel and looking at the pics on my computer. To me, there wasn't a comparison- I'd take the 24-70 any day (which is what I did later that day)... I personally dont need the IS for this focal range and would rather get the superior build quality. I shot some pics with the 24-70 at St. Patricks cathedral and they came out great... Remember also IS will NOT help you with objects that may be moving in low light

My bottom line opinion is that with either of those three you will be fine..

FWIW (and it probably isn't much because reviews vary quite substantially but....) the British mag, Photography Monthly for this May reviewed a bunch of these standard zoom lenses, and on page 109 it didn't give a very good review for the IQ of the 17-55 or the Tamron (at least what I would expect for a lens at that price). The lens with the best IQ in there test was the Sigma... So go figure... But to me, the colors and sharpness of the 24-70 was better to that of the 17-55...

From everything I've read I think it more or less comes down to what copy you get.....

[Woolburr]

Once again...focus mechanism noise has nothing to do with image quality. And you are going to have to explain this one..."The 24-105 seems like a terrible choice to me on a crop, but I never had one on a crop. On the 5D it's awesome. IS + f/4 + clean ISO 3200 = very decent low light lens. And that is why I again said the 17-55 is the sharpest of the 4."

The 24-105 is an EF lens...can be used on any Canon body. The 17-55 is an EF-s lens and can only be used on bodies designed for EF-s glass...but what the heck does shooting a 24-105 on a 5D have to do with making the 17-55 a sharp lens?

[condyk]

...but what the heck does shooting a 24-105 on a 5D have to do with making the 17-55 a sharp lens?

No point arguing logic with a lady like August :lol: :lol:

[angryhampster]

I was hoping I wasn't the only one that couldn't take the girl's posts seriously.

[august23]

Once again...focus mechanism noise has nothing to do with image quality. And you are going to have to explain this one..."The 24-105 seems like a terrible choice to me on a crop, but I never had one on a crop. On the 5D it's awesome. IS + f/4 + clean ISO 3200 = very decent low light lens. And that is why I again said the 17-55 is the sharpest of the 4."

The 24-105 is an EF lens...can be used on any Canon body. The 17-55 is an EF-s lens and can only be used on bodies designed for EF-s glass...but what the heck does shooting a 24-105 on a 5D have to do with making the 17-55 a sharp lens?


24-105 = 38mm starting point. not as sharp, f/4. on a crop, that just wouldnt be my choice of walkaround. i think it goes without saying the 24-105 is the least sharp of the 4.

[angryhampster]

24-105 = 38mm starting point. not as sharp, f/4. on a crop, that just wouldnt be my choice of walkaround. i think it goes without saying the 24-105 is the least sharp of the 4.



Awesome...now let's try something relevant to the thread.

[cdifoto]

24-105 = 38mm starting point. not as sharp, f/4. on a crop, that just wouldnt be my choice of walkaround. i think it goes without saying the 24-105 is the least sharp of the 4.

You still didn't clarify how the 17-55 comes into play.

[sadowsk2]

i stand by my earlier post!!! :rolleyes:

i recommend the 24-70, but all 3 will probably serve you well...

[biggpopa]

i stand by my earlier post!!! :rolleyes:

i recommend the 24-70, but all 3 will probably serve you well...

:-( I think I caused too much trouble with my post! Thanks for your input. So I guess I should forget about the 24-105 (extra distance does not matter), and should concentrate on whether I want the 17-55 or the 24-70L......What a dilema.

again, thank you all for your feedback.

Shaq.

[cdifoto]

:-( I think I caused too much trouble with my post! Thanks for your input. So I guess I should forget about the 24-105 (extra distance does not matter), and should concentrate on whether I want the 17-55 or the 24-70L......What a dilema.

again, thank you all for your feedback.

Shaq.

I'm gonna throw a monkey wrench into this little machine:

I hated the range of the kit lens. I think I'm the only one though.

[Permagrin]

:-( I think I caused too much trouble with my post! Thanks for your input. So I guess I should forget about the 24-105 (extra distance does not matter), and should concentrate on whether I want the 17-55 or the 24-70L......What a dilema.

again, thank you all for your feedback.

Shaq.

you didn't cause any trouble! This place is supposed to be for asking questions/getting answers...

[biggpopa]

I'm gonna throw a monkey wrench into this little machine:

I hated the range of the kit lens. I think I'm the only one though.

Sometimes I think that as well, but I guess that'll get me to walk to my subject....get a better position, rather than relying on the zoom, but agian, my opinion only. 24-70L might have the perfect range that I need for the type of shooting I do.

[Permagrin]

Sometimes I think that as well, but I guess that'll get me to walk to my subject....get a better position, rather than relying on the zoom, but agian, my opinion only. 24-70L might have the perfect range that I need for the type of shooting I do.

it's pretty heavy...if you're concerned about needing IS, you might test it first. (they call it "the brick" for good reason).

edit: I almost hesitate to say this, but have you considered the tamron 28-75 f2.8? It's got pretty nice IQ as well and is much lighter.

[cdifoto]

Sometimes I think that as well, but I guess that'll get me to walk to my subject....get a better position, rather than relying on the zoom, but agian, my opinion only. 24-70L might have the perfect range that I need for the type of shooting I do.

Trust me, regardless of the actual range of the zoom, you still get lazy and fat. :lol:

[biggpopa]

you didn't cause any trouble! This place is supposed to be for asking questions/getting answers...

Thank you. Just wanted to say I love the pics from the mansion in your gallery. What lens did you use for that. I loved all the pics!!

[biggpopa]

Trust me, regardless of the actual range of the zoom, you still get lazy and fat. :lol:


Trust me....I know that all too well!! :-)

[condyk]

Man cannot live on sharp alone ...

[cdifoto]

Man cannot live on sharp alone ...

Amen to that. Need Chicken Ramen too. :)

[Permagrin]

Thank you. Just wanted to say I love the pics from the mansion in your gallery. What lens did you use for that. I loved all the pics!!

thank you :)

I used the canon 17-40L for all the shots.

[biggpopa]

it's pretty heavy...if you're concerned about needing IS, you might test it first. (they call it "the brick" for good reason).

edit: I almost hesitate to say this, but have you considered the tamron 28-75 f2.8? It's got pretty nice IQ as well and is much lighter.

That's a good point. I never thought of that. I wonder if i'd notice a difference by going to 28 rather than 24 on the lower end?

[versedmb]

:-( I think I caused too much trouble with my post! Thanks for your input. So I guess I should forget about the 24-105 (extra distance does not matter), and should concentrate on whether I want the 17-55 or the 24-70L......What a dilema.

again, thank you all for your feedback.

Shaq.

Did you ever see this comparison of the 17-55 vs the 17-50?.....the Tamron actually looks a little better in terms of IQ. In my view the only reasons to choose the Canon over the Tamron are AF, IS and Canon name, which many may consider to be reason enough......

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

[august23]

Awesome...now let's try something relevant to the thread.

Try reading past the first post.




And it doesn't matter what we say, the OP will go with his guy anyway. And his gut says the 17-55, RIGHT?;)

[cdifoto]

That's a good point. I never thought of that. I wonder if i'd notice a difference by going to 28 rather than 24 on the lower end?

Are you a manly man or a girly man? Rock up soldier! Carry the brick! :mad: :)

[biggpopa]

Did you ever see this comparison of the 17-55 vs the 17-50?.....the Tamron actually looks a little better in terms of IQ. In my view the only reasons to choose the Canon over the Tamron are AF, IS and Canon name, which many may consider to be reason enough......

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

I was thinking of it for the IS. I find my hands not steady enough, and think that's why my pics seem out of focus to me. When I do the test on the tripod the pics are sharp, but at hand held seem a little soft.

[biggpopa]

Try reading past the first post.




And it doesn't matter what we say, the OP will go with his guy anyway. And his gut says the 17-55, RIGHT?;)

Well, it's a good battle between the 17-55 and the 24-70L.....I think it'll go 10 rounds before we have a winner ;-)

[biggpopa]

Are you a manly man or a girly man? Rock up soldier! Carry the brick! :mad: :)

Well if you're going to put it that way.......24-70L it is... LOL

[gardengirl13]

There's also sigma's 24-70.

Here's what you need to do. Look through all your photos, see where you shoot the most (wide, middle or long) and then narrow your lens selection down to that range. Don't listen to what anyone has to say until you have 3 lenses or so then ask about those lenses only. Then you still will get people saying "what about xx lens?"

If you range is good on the lens you have and you like the lens then don't get rid of it for a Canon. If you feel you could use something longer then see about getting the 70-200. Personally I've tried someone's tammy 17-50 and thought it was better then canon's 17-40L. I tried a 17-55 and wasn't overly impressed. And now especially after I got prints back from it I'm not happy at all and am glad I didn't buy it. I thought my prints from the tammy were better. I did the same PP for both lenses and both pictures were the same subject in the same lighting.

Be honest with yourself, how often do you have real slow shutter speeds? What are you shooting at those speeds? Would a tripod be better? If you're shooting festivals would length be better? Personally on a crop 24 is plenty wide for ME for normal every day use. So if I were to go with one of the zooms it'd be the 24-105 over any of the other only due to the extra reach on the long end. But I don't like IS. So right now the very cheap 28-105 works fine for festivals and fairs and when I don't want to take my primes.

[sadowsk2]

Gardengirl may be on to something as the last competitive review I read the Sigma beat out the 17-55 IS for IQ and overall quality... The 24-70L was NOT part of this competition....

[foghorn]

The little noise the Tammy makes is minor compared to the sewing machine sounds from hell emitted by most Sigma stuff...not to mention a couple of Canon's lower end offerings...like a certain 28mm that is known as the buzzsaw. I don't know where you get off equating Image Quality to focusing mechanism noise...but the two are totally irrelevant to each other. Trollin' trollin' trollin'...keep the nonsense rollin'.
Anyway you slice it, the 17-50 is loud. And it's a step backwards from it's slighly older brother, the 28-75.
Is that said Canon 28mm new? When was it released? Yeah, keep the insults rolling. Whatever makes you feel better.

[biggpopa]

There's also sigma's 24-70.



Thank you. You make a good point. I find that most of my shooting is at the 40-50mm end of my tamron...and there are times I wished I had a bit more. I was leaning towards the 24-70 after this thread.

I didn't want to start up anything, so I didn't ask about the Sigma version. From my searches, many have liked it, and at half the price may be the way to go. I guess I could hold onto my Tammy incase I do see the need for something wider, and purchase the Sigma as well, since I'd be saving a considerable amount.

[gardengirl13]

The only complaint I've heard about the sigma is it's a little slow focusing. Again I've never tried it so I can't compare. If I were you I'd keep the tammy and get something in the 70-200 range. You're not missing much going from 50 to 70. Plus it'll extend your lens range not upgrade.

[biggpopa]

The only complaint I've heard about the sigma is it's a little slow focusing. Again I've never tried it so I can't compare. If I were you I'd keep the tammy and get something in the 70-200 range. You're not missing much going from 50 to 70. Plus it'll extend your lens range not upgrade.

How would the focusing compare between the tamron 17-50 and the sigma 24-70? and the tamron 28-75?

Also, I've ordered the 70-200L F4, to cover the long range.

[Permagrin]

How would the focusing compare between the tamron 17-50 and the sigma 24-70? and the tamron 28-75?

Also, I've ordered the 70-200L F4, to cover the long range.

I have the tamron 28-75 and have used husband's 17-50. I really did not find them different at all...and have shot both in lowlight with no issues whatsoever. And handheld as low as 1/20 on f29 in good light. I've never used the sigma though so I cannot comment on it.

I was standing in an area of dark hedges shooting this so there was no light except a ray on the flowers...this is with the tamron 28-75 (which I like very much, even though I own the 24-105L) No polarizer and no processing on these shots except levels (they were solely shots to test the lens when I got it to see how it compared to the 24-105)

f/29 1/125 5D 75mm
http://LC-images.smugmug.com/photos/155598895-L.jpg

f/32 1/20 40mm
http://LC-images.smugmug.com/photos/155599514-L.jpg

I don't have any shots with the 17-50 on my laptop/gallery but the results were very similar with that lens.

[prime80]

Do you do a lot of low-light photography? That's one of the areas where I think either of the Canon offerings will beat the Tamron pretty handily. I've got one friend with the Tamron and one with the Canon and I've borrowed both of them several times. Based on my use of one copy of each of these lenses, I'd rank them as follows: (Disclaimer: This is obviously not a scientific test in any way, nor is it intended to be. It is simply my observations after using 1 copy of each lens)

IQ: Canon wins, but not by much. Sharpness similar between both, but better colors & contrast on the 17-55IS.
AF: Big win for the Canon. It is much faster, quieter, and deadly accurate, even in very low light, while the Tamron I would call average to above average. Hunts in low-light, and is extremely loud (This surprised me because my Tamron 17-35 AF is very quiet).
IS: Canon (duh!) - very good IS.
Build: Canon wins here, but both are built plenty well for consumer lenses.
Price: Big win for the Tamron. Only 40% of the Canon cost.

I like both lenses, and was actually planning on selling my 17-35 and buying the Tamron, but after using both lenses, I'm saving up for the Canon. I just honestly can't handle the AF noise on the Tamron, and the IS on the Canon lets me get some low-light shots without flash that I just wouldn't be able to get with the Tamron.

[Permagrin]

LOL...I have to agree...the tamron lenses are incredibly loud compared to the usm canon lenses. We have the canon 35f2 and call it the buzzsaw, but the tamrons can definitely compete noisewise with it.

[Wilt]

I have run tests of IS on vs. IS off, at short tele end (55mm) and at wide angle end (17mm). Yes, IS does have value even for short tele FL, and IS does have value even for wide angle FL!!! I posted comparisons on POTN in two different tests, and at -3EV on shutter speed I could get reasonable handheld shots with IS on.

The issue is not '$600 more for Canon', but the question for you is '$600 more for IS'...which is about what the price differential is when the same lens is available in both IS version and non-IS version

I have Canon 17-55 and Tamron 28-75. Will I sell one? Not really...the Tamron makes a more compact and lighter travel lens that pairs with my Canon 10-22 very nicely for FL coverage. And with my Kenko 1.4x I can turn the Tamron into 105mm at the long end with minimal loss in IQ. I would hate to cover a wedding with that combination, though! And in additon to the one-lens-wedding-FL-solution, the Canon is much better suited for weddings due to low light focus and IS stability. So I keep both.

[LightRules]

do I sell my Tammy, and pay to get the Canon 17-55 IS F/2.8? Is IQ going to amaze be from switching from the Tammy to the Canon?

I've used and tested both quite a bit. In absolute terms regarding resolving power across the board (i.e., the entire focal range), the 1755 is better, though you're not going to see this difference apart from viewing at 100% or more. I would give the nod again to the Canon in contrast reproduction, as well as light fall-off near or at wide open. In flare performance, the Tammy takes it easily. Build quality is similar with the nod to the Canon, with weight and size going to the smaller Tamron. But of course, the difference here really is the Image Stabilization and Ring USM with Full-Time Manual. These perks are not to be taken lightly. The reason I sold my Tamron was because the AF was hit-and-miss, especially in lower light levels, and the noise and speed cannot compare to the Canon at all. Right now B&H has the Canon for $875, so it's about $425 more than the Tamron. You need to decide how much these things matter to you.

The Canon 1755IS is the ultimate standard zoom for APS-C currently. If you want the best, you need to pay the money in this case.

[shutterfiend]

If you're primarily at the 50 end of the Tamron and barely ever use the wide end how about this:

Canon 50mm f1.8 + Canon 85mm f1.8 + Sigma 30mm f1.4

[biggpopa]

Do you do a lot of low-light photography? That's one of the areas where I think either of the Canon offerings will beat the Tamron pretty handily.

It goes in bursts for me. There are times when all I seem to do is low light shooting (ie work parties, shooting at home (house is a bit dark)). But now with summer here, i'm sure most of my time will be spent outdoors.

We have a festival this weekend, so I'm going to take my Tamron 17-50, and perhaps rent the 17-55 or 24-70L and compare both this weekend to see if the change is worth the money. The 28-75 Tamron was then lens I first wanted to buy but got a really good deal on the Tamron 17-50 and took that instead.

I may just have to experiment a bit and see what suits me best.

[DerekI]

The IS on the Canon makes IQ more consitently good while the Tamron Af makes the IQ so inconsistent .When you got the best performance out of the Tmaron , the Tmaron can be as sharp as the Canon.

But the real issue here is , you can only get the best peformance out of the Tmaron once a million of times , so the average IQ of the Canon is much better than that of the Tmaron.

Any thing longer than 50mm requires the IS , after using the 17-85 and 55IS a lot , I really realize it , I dont think I need the IS on 10-22 or 17-40L , though.

That siad , if you really need to save money and looking for another third party option , there is always the Sigma 18-50EX macro, which focuses faster and more accurately than the Tamron in low light.

The Sigma is optically better balanced than the Tamron ,less CA , less distortion (clearly seen it on my computer) and less vignetting problem.

If you do not use any slower SS than 1/20th , maybe the Sigma is a great choice , I am not sure if I will keep it around with me for a long time but I think it is a better lens than the overly raved Tamron 17-50.

The Sigma has better build , better IQ(better flare performance, better CA control, better distortion control) , better AF speed and it costs less than the Tamron .

Also , the Sigma comes with a nice black bag.

I also think the Tamron has a color problem , orange tint all over which I dislike , I know older Sigmas had yellow tint but it was still better than the orange tint of the Tamron , and this new Sigma18-50 macro does not have the distinctive Sigma color.

This was my first Tmaron experience and I am disappointed with it ..... initially, I loved it , maybe because I shot with it only out side .

EVentually,I will get the Canon for myself (now borrowed from my sister ), but for now , I guess I use the Sigma 18-50 macro and the 17-85 comb.

I will definitely sell the Tmaron with EF85f1.8 for EF-17-40L or 10-22.

Take care.

[DerekI]

I also hate the Tmaron zoom ring , it goes the opposite direction to all my Canon and Sigma lenses. Can not get used to it.

I missed alot of shots because of this.

[Honeybee]

Well if you're going to put it that way.......24-70L it is... LOL

BP,

If you think your hands are shaky, wait until you try to hold the brick on a steady course. I have the Tamron 17-50 and use it way more than the Canon 24-70 both because of the IQ and lighter weight.

[Docsknotinn]

IQ: Canon wins, but not by much. Sharpness similar between both, but better colors & contrast on the 17-55IS.
AF: Big win for the Canon. It is much faster, quieter, and deadly accurate, even in very low light, while the Tamron I would call average to above average. Hunts in low-light, and is extremely loud (This surprised me because my Tamron 17-35 AF is very quiet).
IS: Canon (duh!) - very good IS.
Build: Canon wins here, but both are built plenty well for consumer lenses.
Price: Big win for the Tamron. Only 40% of the Canon cost.

I just honestly can't handle the AF noise on the Tamron, and the IS on the Canon lets me get some low-light shots without flash that I just wouldn't be able to get with the Tamron.

Well said and overall this refelects my limited experience with one copy of each as well. For me the biggest difference is that I find the Canon to be far more capable wide open. Plus IS and USM. I don't think there is a bad choice between the two but if you can swing the $$$ for the Canon I seriously doubt you will regret it.

[biggpopa]

Well said and overall this refelects my limited experience with one copy of each as well. For me the biggest difference is that I find the Canon to be far more capable wide open. Plus IS and USM. I don't think there is a bad choice between the two but if you can swing the $$$ for the Canon I seriously doubt you will regret it.

I have the budget for the 17-55. I initially bought the Tamron because my budget was tight at the time, but I recently upgrade my camera and have enough left for the 17-55 if I decide I want it.

I really think the IS will be beneficial for me. I think i'll try it for the weekend, and see how it is. Worst case I have to return it because I find no difference. I really appreciate everyone's input. It helps hearing the different points of view.

[prime80]

I have the budget for the 17-55. I initially bought the Tamron because my budget was tight at the time, but I recently upgrade my camera and have enough left for the 17-55 if I decide I want it.

I really think the IS will be beneficial for me. I think i'll try it for the weekend, and see how it is. Worst case I have to return it because I find no difference. I really appreciate everyone's input. It helps hearing the different points of view.

You won't be returning it. ;)

[DerekI]

the IS on the 17-55IS is more effective than IS's on others except the IS on 70-200F4L IS.

[forno]

I have the budget for the 17-55. I initially bought the Tamron because my budget was tight at the time, but I recently upgrade my camera and have enough left for the 17-55 if I decide I want it.

I really think the IS will be beneficial for me. I think i'll try it for the weekend, and see how it is. Worst case I have to return it because I find no difference. I really appreciate everyone's input. It helps hearing the different points of view.


Just do it, you wont regret it

[xBtUser]

Hi biggpopa,
I have the same struggle like you recently and I finally decided to go for the Canon 17-55F/2.8. This len is so amazing and I'm totally happy with my decision. You can hand held at 1/10 and the picture still look sharp!(non moving subject). The color and contrast is so much better compare to my Tamron 28-75 F/2.8.

Hope you make a good decision soon. I have tried Canon 24-70 before and I think you won't be disappointed with either of the lens.

Cheers,
Brandon

[gotmikey]

Okay, I have owned the Tamron 17-50 for three weeks and it is sharp, about equal to 85 1.8 sharp, but sharper than the 17-40L, but not as good color. I have the 70-200 f4L IS and it is the sharpest and has the best color rendition and bokeh I have seen out of all of these. The 17-55 is sharper than the 70-200 f4L IS and has almost equal color out of the camera. I was scared that I might get a bunk copy of this lens, but I think mine is good... real good. Honestly, I really thought that I would be happy with the Tamron, which I thoroughly was, but the curiousity with the 17-55 killed me. I had to see it with my own eyes. Now that I have it in my hands, it is not going back. Expensive, but you'll get over that once you see it for yourself.

[ungakhan]

I've recently been agonising over the choice between the Tamron 17-50 and the Canon 17-55. I've gone with the Canon but only for the IS and the AF is better too (and the build quality IMO). I've tested both against each other and there's barely a difference in IQ most of the time. The Tamron is an excellent lens for the price.

[biggpopa]

Okay...so, I went at a tangent.

I went and played with the 24-70L, 17-55, and the 24-105L. The 24-70...wow, nice lens, but heavy. 17-55 IQ was great, and so was the 24-105L.

I finally decided on the 24-105L for the reach factor. I really loved the images it produced, and since most of my shots are outdoors, i decided to take this one. I figured i'd hold onto my Tammy 17-50 for the wide angle, and low light shooting. I think I made the right decision!

I'll be out at an outdoor festival tomorrow....and will put the 24-105L to work!

Thanks everyone who contributed to my decision. MY FIRST L LENS!!!!!

[LightRules]

Congrats and enjoy your 24-105. Very versatile with good IQ. Have fun.

[condyk]

Nice choice ... I had that on my ex 30D and was great ... but I need wider for what I shoot. If you sell the tammy then the Tokina 12-24 is a great lens for a great price and will work nice on the 30D ... or uphgrade to a 5D and the 24-105mm will do the job alone. Anyway, hope it works for you and you enjoy it.

[Permagrin]

Okay...so, I went at a tangent.

I went and played with the 24-70L, 17-55, and the 24-105L. The 24-70...wow, nice lens, but heavy. 17-55 IQ was great, and so was the 24-105L.

I finally decided on the 24-105L for the reach factor. I really loved the images it produced, and since most of my shots are outdoors, i decided to take this one. I figured i'd hold onto my Tammy 17-50 for the wide angle, and low light shooting. I think I made the right decision!

I'll be out at an outdoor festival tomorrow....and will put the 24-105L to work!

Thanks everyone who contributed to my decision. MY FIRST L LENS!!!!!

Congratulations! I'm sure you'll be very happy with it...nice choice for a first L ;)

[whiteflyer]

I don't know if it is a big deal or not as I don't have a flash yet, the the canon 17-55 IS does send distance information to a canon flash.

I'm in the same boat over which to get in the 24-105 L or 17-55 IS, and they are both the same price :confused: :confused:

[biggpopa]

Well, I had an opportunity to take the 24-105L out for a festival, and I have to admit that this is one fantastic lens!!!

I have to admit, under ideal conditions my Tamron 17-50 could achieve the same IQ results, however simply the speed of the AF and the number of keepers I got doubled!

I absolutely love this lens. I thought that if the IQ was not that different that I would return the lens, but after seeing what it can do I don't think that it will ever leave my camera!

I was just amazed at what the lens can do....the USM is GREAT! I couldn't even hear the lens....there was no searching for the subject...it just grabbed the subject and focused in on it and bang...a great picture! Bokeh on the Tamron is better....(F2.8 vs F4), but aside from that I am thoroughly pleased with my new L.

I'll post some pics later, as i only got a chance to quickly glance at my pics.

I don't regret getting this over the 17-55 whatsoever. Just my 2 cents!!

Thanks again.

[wcimages]

I just finished making a decision on trading my Tamron 24-75 for the Canon 17-55. This was a tough decision because my Tamron was very sharp. When I purchased it, I had in hand the two Canon L lenses - 27-70 & 28-70 - and was able to test all three. The Tamron was as sharp as the L lens. I've now had it for two years and over time have tested it against all the competition and nothing would show any sharper images over the entire focal range. That is until I tested the Canon 17-55. I compared the Tamron against three Canon 17-55's. One obviously needed adjustment but the other two were right on. Across the entire range the Canon was sharper in the center and especially in the corners. I don't concern myself with minor differences in contract, color, CA or distortion because I can correct these differences with software. You cannot create sharpness that isn't there to start with. As much as I hate to part with the Tamron, Ill be trading it on the Canon first thing Monday morning.