caiguar wrote in post #8234959
I am guessing is because they could afford the 17-55, It's a great lens but if I could afford the other one. I would go with it. I love mine for its price and performance.
I guess all im saying is. If I could afford the other one I would no have this one.
CaptainTonus wrote in post #8234992
I've used both, and while the 17-55 is useful for its IS and USM, I don't feel that it makes it worth the extra $400-500. Honestly, I can't tell any difference in IQ between the two lenses. I love my Tamron 17-50, the only reason I can foresee getting rid of it would be to go to a FF body.
That's pretty much what I figured. It sounds like the 17-50 is a good lens and a good value, but if the $$ wasn't an issue, most/many people would buy the 17-55. I figured the users who "upgraded" to the 17-55 did so because they originally could only afford the Tamron but when they later had the money, the IS, USM and ?? convinced them to upgrade. That's exactly what I was considering doing as I am about to buy a 50D and need to get another lens so my wife can use my XTi while I am using my 24-105L on the 50D. By getting a lens in the 17-xx range, she can not only use it as a walk-around lens, but it'll give me something wider and faster than my 24-105 f/4L when I need it. With a body, the 17-55 would cost too much and I've been reading too many negatives about my first consideration, the 17-85 (plus it is too slow).