I've had my tamron 17-50 ever since the end of December, and I'm still a little uneasy about using it. Even though it has become my primary walk around lens, it didn't blow me away as did the tokina 12-24 from my Canon 28-105. I also don't really see the IQ upgrade from my tokina as much.
I'd say 50% of my pics are softer than I would have liked them to be. And most of the time I find that I had to focus more than once, which I find annoying. Dim light is annoying as well. Note: I usually use between f2.8 and 4.5.
Am I correct in assuming that the Canon 17-55 has a much more accurate autofocus, can better focus in low light, and greater IQ (or if not IQ, that the Canon can achieve the high IQ with a significantly greater frequency)? If so, I may just sell all my gear save the drainpipe to fund the 17-55.
Minor note: Another thread is about purple fringing problems of the Canon. Is it more or less than the tamron?
Basically: How much would my pics improve if I had shot the same settings in Canon? I know these aren't real "tests," but the fact that I have them do mean something. These are straight jpgs out of the camera. Are these sharp? Can they be sharper with the Canon?
@17mm f2.8 1/5