Is it worth "upgrading" from Tamron 17-50 to Canon 17-55?

So, I think I want to switch up my line-up. If I sell my EOS mount Rokkor 58mm 1.2 and my Tamron 17-50 that gets me close to buying a Canon 17-55. My question is, is the Canon worth the upgrade from the Tamron? How much difference is there? I bought the Tamron as I couldn't afford the Canon option and had heard good things. Just looking for some input.

With good pp the differences are minimal. The canon does have some advantages.

1.) IS- very handy for handheld shots of stationary subjects, especially in low light.

2.) better sharpness and overall iq (based on having owned both)

3.) much better AF in low light. The tamron always struggled with this for me. It was slow and seemed to struggle to acquire focus sometimes.

4.) MUCH quieter AF. Also lightning fast and smooth in ai-servo

Overall I would recommend upgrading at some point. I never regretted it. If budget is a concern, I've heard good things about the sigma OS lens. The tamron VC version seems to have some copy variation but can be good as well.

In short yes it's worth the upgrade.

Buy it once and buy it right...

If you need the faster AF , yes . Otherwise no

The IQ is damn close from mine compared to my friends. However the Canon has a slight, very slight more reach, more weight, phenomenal IS and fast silent AF.

I however sold mine and eventually ended up with the Sigma and wow. Much sharper, super silent AF which is very rapid, a bit over twice the speed as tamron and the OS is amazing much like the Canons. I picked up mine for 500. I had sold the Tamron for 325 so it wasn't but 175 more.

I'm pleased. I got rid of the tamron and got the 24-105, which I loved BUT I just couldn't deal with being stuck at F4 so I went to the Sigma... I couldn't justify the price of a Canon 17-55 (same as the 24-105) yikes.

The sigma intrigues me but the price isn't so much an issue. I kind of dont want to play the Sigma lottery honestly

IQ may be close, when the Tamron finishes hunting for focus.....I had the Tammy, and their focus system is not near as fast/accurate as Canons. When it hits, its great, I had way too many misses though that I sold it.

Its worth upgrading if you need IS and USM which it does better than the Tamron nonVC. But I will not upgrade my Tamron nonVC. It is ridiculously sharp and an excellent studio lens, which is what I use it for, so the AF is a non-issue and over 2x the price for IS isn't worth it for me.

The ability to find focus faster is a huge sell. I'd hate to see my 58mm go, but I really don't use it even though it's a beautiful piece of glass.

BrickR wrote in post #15806087
Its worth upgrading if you need IS and USM which it does better than the Tamron nonVC. But I will not upgrade my Tamron nonVC. It is ridiculously sharp and an excellent studio lens, which is what I use it for, so the AF is a non-issue and over 2x the price for IS isn't worth it for me.

I agree . I always thought I'd "upgrade" , but never saw the need ...The Tamron's Af has never let me down ..

The Canon is a better lens, no question. Worth it? Well only the person spending the money can say that.
For me it was definitely worth it, although it wasn't a big jump in IQ and an immediate "wow".
I really liked my Tamron, so at first i was in two minds whether to keep the Canon, it was too close to the Tamron in IQ, bigger and heavier, and of course more money.
After a 2 week trip to Disney i put the Tamron up for sale. The Canon just performed better in all situations, never missed a shot and having IS meant i could go down to about 1/4 in low light (this was back in the 30D/40D days when high ISO was rubbish).
I felt IQ was still better than the Tamron but not by a lot, but the overall package was better and was nicer to use, as I had more trust in the Canon.

dave_bass5 wrote in post #15810806
The Canon is a better lens, no question. Worth it? Well only the person spending the money can say that.

He said it in this lovely sentence. I use Tamron and I've never missed any shot because of focus speed. I click people. IS does not work for me as SS like 1/50 to 1/4 are anyway useless for portraits. People breath, people move, kids certainly do > and we do not tranquilise them to capture a picture

For me it was 100% worth it. It's expensive, but simply a perfect walk-around lens for crop cameras. Focus speed, focus accuracy and IS are the features I love.

My old tamron was sharp. I couldn't afford a 17-55 back then so I went the tamron route. The only thing I didn't like about the tamron was the built quality and noise AF motor. Keep in mind that there's a lot of complaint about how dusty the 17-55 gets. Image quality will be really close as stated.

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non vc has never disappointed me . Such a master piece of glass which is able to produce sharpest pics. Luckily my copy is really nice which starts performing at f2.8.
IQ wise you will not find much difference.Bump your camera ISO and increase your shutter speed up to 1/50,why you require then IS in such a short focal length.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/sandeepsaman/8​619033674/