should i keep my tammy 17-50 non-vc?

i have a sigma 30, a tamron 17-50 non-vc, and the canon 24-105L. i mostly use the L and love the quality and reach. f/4 is the limitation as we all know, but with a flash, its not terrible. for low light, i purchased the siggy. now, i find that my tamron is seldom used, and am wondering if i should sell it. there is alot of overlap with the 24-105, and i only get 7mm on the wide end.

sure, the tamron is faster, but i have the sigma for that. im torn between keeping the tamron and selling it (either replacing it with something else, or just pocketing the $$)

PS. ive thought about selling the 24-105 and the tammy, and buying the canon 17-55 with IS, but i love the reach on the tele side.

The Tamron 17-50mm is going to give you more wide angle than the 24-105mm. If taking landscape is your thing, I will keep the tamron handy for that. Since the lens is not expensive brand new, you are not gonna get lots of money for it anyways.

Keep your 24-105mm, I will never trade my L for a EF-S lens. Just in case you are going to FF later.

I pretty much have the same dilemma as you. There are times when I think the tammi will be a better choice so I am leaning towards keeping it because of the range on the wide end and the larger aperture. It is not like I have alot tied up in it. I am definetely thinking about getting rid of my other lenses that overlap my 24-105 with the exception of my primes.

it seems that i wind up with this dilemma every 3 months or so.... and eventually convince myself to forget it.

here is the scenario that got me thinking about it: i was a shooter at a friend's wedding - they hired the pro only for before/during the ceremony. the after-ceremony dinner was all in my hands. i knew the place would be dimly lit, so i left the 24-105 at home, and took the tammy and my flash.

in that case, the tammy came in useful. however, some of the shots werent fantastic - lack of IS i suppose, even with flash. so that got me thinking if i should have just taken the 30mm, with the extra few stops, and used foot zoom. but then, what would i have used the tammy for?


thats why i am a bit ambivalent about keeping it. i prob wouldnt get much more than $300 or so for it, but i can use that toward another lens.

ekinnyc wrote in post #12604372
it seems that i wind up with this dilemma every 3 months or so.... and eventually convince myself to forget it.

here is the scenario that got me thinking about it: i was a shooter at a friend's wedding - they hired the pro only for before/during the ceremony. the after-ceremony dinner was all in my hands. i knew the place would be dimly lit, so i left the 24-105 at home, and took the tammy and my flash.

in that case, the tammy came in useful. however, some of the shots werent fantastic - lack of IS i suppose, even with flash. so that got me thinking if i should have just taken the 30mm, with the extra few stops, and used foot zoom. but then, what would i have used the tammy for?


thats why i am a bit ambivalent about keeping it. i prob wouldnt get much more than $300 or so for it, but i can use that toward another lens.

What are the shots look like? Blurry? IS has less effect on a fast lens like that, even on low light. My previous 17-50mm performed well under those situation when shooting wide open. And since you have a flash, that would only be better. You are right about selling it and use the money towards other lens....but what are you gonna get later? Perhaps a wide angle, a 10-20mm to sub the tamron on the wide angle side?

Looking at your gear list, you will not have anything wider than 24mm. If you are fine with that, then sell the Tammi and maybe look at something longer than 105mm? Or sell the tammi and purchase an UWA if you need wider than 24mm. I don't know what your shooting reqirements are. I do alot of landscape and nature, so I need both wider and longer at times.

You can sell your Tammy and get an UWA. So at least it has less/no overlap with your 24-105.

thestone11 wrote in post #12604565
What are the shots look like? Blurry? IS has less effect on a fast lens like that, even on low light. My previous 17-50mm performed well under those situation when shooting wide open. And since you have a flash, that would only be better. You are right about selling it and use the money towards other lens....but what are you gonna get later? Perhaps a wide angle, a 10-20mm to sub the tamron on the wide angle side?

ill have to post up an example.... some blur, yes, but thats subject movement (it was a wedding and everyone was excited). but there was also something else, something i cant explain. it looked like really bad CA, but not really CA.

thats the thing - i dont know what i'd get... i have no use for a UWA really, and the 24mm suits my shooting fine. i thought about grabbing a 70-200, but dotn really have use for it either. i suppose the $ from the tammy sale would just be money in the pocket, but not even all that much at that


i dont want to sound like im hating on the tammy.... at the same event, with slightly better lighting, it got me some amazing shots. i didnt want to turn this thread into a discussion on the merits of the lens - i am just concerned that i dont use it that often, so perhaps its best to sell it

In that case sell it.

ekinnyc wrote in post #12604870
ill have to post up an example.... some blur, yes, but thats subject movement (it was a wedding and everyone was excited). but there was also something else, something i cant explain. it looked like really bad CA, but not really CA.

thats the thing - i dont know what i'd get... i have no use for a UWA really, and the 24mm suits my shooting fine. i thought about grabbing a 70-200, but dotn really have use for it either. i suppose the $ from the tammy sale would just be money in the pocket, but not even all that much at that
i dont want to sound like im hating on the tammy.... at the same event, with slightly better lighting, it got me some amazing shots. i didnt want to turn this thread into a discussion on the merits of the lens - i am just concerned that i dont use it that often, so perhaps its best to sell it

yes, post an example. I don't see the need for even having a prime like the Sigma 30 because the Tamron is good indoors. if it's really dark I'll use a flash

XSi and Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc
look ma, no flash!

i have the 17-50 non vc and a 24-105 as well. for indoors i use the tammy, outside for walking around i use the 24-105

The 24mm end of the Canon zoom is not wide enough (on a crop) for travel photography if you are interested in architecture or other unusual sights. I have used the kit lens for travel (18-55IS), but just picked up the Tokina 12-24 for that very purpose. Sometimes you need wider than 18mm on the T2i. If you don't need wide - ever - then there is no reason to keep the 17-50. However, you won't have a wide angle lens if you get rid of the Tamron. The longer Canon zoom does not really have a wide end, and 30mm gives you a field of view that is normal on a crop.

ekinnyc wrote in post #12603893
i have a sigma 30, a tamron 17-50 non-vc, and the canon 24-105L. i mostly use the L and love the quality and reach. f/4 is the limitation as we all know, but with a flash, its not terrible. for low light, i purchased the siggy. now, i find that my tamron is seldom used, and am wondering if i should sell it. there is alot of overlap with the 24-105, and i only get 7mm on the wide end.

sure, the tamron is faster, but i have the sigma for that. im torn between keeping the tamron and selling it (either replacing it with something else, or just pocketing the $$)

PS. ive thought about selling the 24-105 and the tammy, and buying the canon 17-55 with IS, but i love the reach on the tele side.

personally i'd sell the 24-105L hah. my tamron was sharper, lighter, went wider, only thing it lacked, for me, was IS

wombatHorror wrote in post #12605571
personally i'd sell the 24-105L hah. my tamron was sharper, lighter, went wider, only thing it lacked, for me, was IS

and 51mm-105mm. Seems to be missing a bit. I have the Tammi and the 24-105l; if I had to give one up, it would not be the Canon! I also prefer the overall picture quality of the L as well. Like the tammi,but LOVE THE L!

wombatHorror wrote in post #12605571
personally i'd sell the 24-105L hah. my tamron was sharper, lighter, went wider, only thing it lacked, for me, was IS

My thoughts also