Canon 17-55: Should I?

My current "standard" zoom on my 7D is a Tamron 28-75. I've had this lens for several years and it always performs well. IQ is amazing and the range suits me well. I shoot mainly living things (people and animals mostly), and have a Tokina 12-24 to cover the wider end of things.

If I have one small gripe about the Tamron, it's the slow focusing speed and the fact that it sometimes hunts or struggles for focus in low light, even in the studio (especially with dark-coloured subjects like black dogs). I like to do action shots in the studio (dogs catching tennis balls, etc.), and it's sometimes hard to grab focus with this lens.

I have an opportunity to buy a used Canon 17-55, but it would involve selling my much-loved Tamron to raise enough funds. I like the range of the 17-55 a bit less - I really enjoy the longer reach of the Tamron - but am hopeful that the quicker focusing would compensate. The new lens would be used for studio work, plus people and animal shots outdoors. I'd probably also sell the Tokina, and keep my 60 macro, 85 f1.8 and 70-200 f4 IS.

So would this be a good move? For those of you who know the Tamron and the Canon, which would you choose?

The EF-s 15-85 is a closer fit to your Tamron's zoom range. F/2.8 it ain't. IQ and build quality of the 17-55 & 15-85 are similar: very good. If you need the 2.8, you need the 17-55.

I'd hate to lose the f2.8 - that's the main reason why I haven't considered the 15-85, despite the tempting focal range.

I'm really torn on this one.

With a 70-200/4L IS, I never missed the gap between 55mm and 70mm.

I would recommend trying the 17-55 along side your Tamron before pulling the trigger. I really like the 17-55, but, it's not a lens that's obviously better than everything else out there with f/2.8.

I heard this lens have a terrible Lens flare?? I'm considering and hunting used for this lens , but after read about flare review , i feel like wan to give up about this lens

marcosv wrote in post #15713082
With a 70-200/4L IS, I never missed the gap between 55mm and 70mm.

.

This.

I have the 17-55, the 70-200 F4 IS and the 10-22 and 100-400 for UWA and long reach, and I have never yet missed the 55-70 gap. The 17-55 is a terrific lens.

Scrumhalf wrote in post #15713183
This.

I have the 17-55, the 70-200 F4 IS and the 10-22 and 100-400 for UWA and long reach, and I have never yet missed the 55-70 gap. The 17-55 is a terrific lens.

how about the flare control?

My 17-55 rarely ever comes off my camera. I have not had any issues with flare

Admittedly I don't shoot into the sun a lot, but I have never had any flare issues. Why don't you rent one and check it out first?

I also have a 17-55, and it quickly became my walking around lens. I have never noticed a problem with flare. The AF is fast and quiet, and f/2.8 really help on indoor shots. -rick

The focus speed of the 17-55 f/2.8 is very fast. I have never used the Tamron 28-75 as a comparison, but you will not find many zoom lenses that focus faster than the Canon.

While the 17-55 is a little more susceptible to flare than some lenses, it is nothing major and using a lens hood will help with this, as well protect the front element.

You will lose some reach compared with the Tamron. This was the only thing I disliked about the 17-55 when I owned it. Yes, the gap between 55mm and 70mm when owning a 70-200 is a non-issue, but there are lots of times I would take a single lens to travel light. That is when you will miss the reach of your Tamron, and one of the reasons the 24-105L, instead of a 24-70 zoom, is my main walk around lens now on full frame. I supplement the f/4 zoom with prime lenses for those times I need something fast, so I do not miss having a f/2.8 walk around zoom.

Thanks, guys. I've been using my Tamron at 55 and below this week, and I've come to the conclusion that the range of the 17-55 isn't going to cut it. I really miss the additional reach. I'm going to have a look at a 24-105 tomorrow. If only the Tamron focused a bit faster ...

I've been using the 17-55 for 5 years according to my Amazon review. I never thought of the 55 being limiting. If I needed reach, it was usually something that even 75 would barely touch. The 17-55 was usually sharp enough to crop what I needed. I went from a 17-85 to the 17-55 and never once missed the zoom because I rarely had barriers that prevented me from walking up closer for that little bit of extra tele. Often times, I'm stuck indoors and appreciate the width. To me, on my 7D, wide angle is more appreciated. Hate to get stuck indoors with a 24.

I went from the tamron to the 17-55 and love it. I don't miss the reach and the is is awesome

I was using a 10-22 and a 18-200, but bought a 17-55 for the 2.8, fast AF and great glass.
Love it! Will put the 18-200 back on if I need to shoot long, or eventually bet a higher quality long lens. With sharp glass and 18mp you can crop way in with the 17-55.