HKGuns wrote in post #12773518
It is great that you own this lens and everything, however, don't post crap that simply isn't true. The Canon 17-55 by all tests, I have seen, has higher resolution numbers than this lens and is overall a better lens when other factors are included in the analysis. If you add for dollar spent I may have less issue with your statement.
Yeah, I've owned 2 copies of each the 24-70mm and 17-55mm(what have you owned?). The tamron(non VC) single handly beat them all on my 50D. The 17-55mm is amazing, but sharpness in both copies I had was just okay at F2.8, F4 was about the same as the tamron but wide open at anything closer then 10'(which I do plenty of) the 17-50mm took the lead. The 24-70mm was just okay at everything(not bad, just no where near the hype which sucks because I love that range more then the 17-5ish focal length). And some the feature are nice, USM is great with FTM(what I miss the most), but build I give it to the tamron for being more soild with less wobble in the lens barrel and it has a smoother focusing ring. IS does not mean much to me personally, as I shoot product where it is useless, or shooting sports where it is even more useless. For less then half the price, you can have a lens that is equal to
Remember kiddies, numbers dont reflect reality. Give a 3 year old a 5d mk II and 200mm F2 does not mean the images they get will be amazing. I am seeing it more and more as I spend time and shoot instead of just being a gear whore like I used to be.
And please dont tell people their opinions are s***. I have owned more gear then you could imagine(most of canon's current lens line up I have owned, as well as 1/5/7/10-60D bodies). And my current work camera is my Mamiya Pro-S and a P65+ digital back, so I know nothing about quality.