Will I REALLY be able to see the diffrence between the 18-55 IS and the Tamron 17-50

Maybe I should have asked this before my purchase. Just won an auction for the 17-50 non vc. Now I wonder if it will really be a big change. I am fairly sure that they both will last so build quality is not a factor to me. Faster focusing would be nice but the nifty 50 gets bad rap for having slow focus and yet I get decent action shots like these

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1068201.

I get sharp images with my kit lens but not as sharp as I see with other lenses but I always wonder how much is user and PP vs the actual lens. occasionally seeing some putrid pictures posted by some like the ones I saw today using a 5dII and 70-200 2.8 is makes me think it is the former.

Well I can always sell it.

Thanks for listening to me rambling on.

It will be sharper, but louder. It will definetely be much better at f2.8 than the kit lens!

You will be able to see the difference.

Hands down, big difference. No doubt. The 18-55 is a capable lens, but the upgrades in your new lens will be quite noticeable. f2.8 locked aperture, sharpness, and it focuses a bit faster.

Don't worry. I received my Tamron yesterday and after playing with it and comparing it with the Canon 18-55mm IS you will be able to tell the differance in IQ between the 2 of them. I was like your self a little apprehensive about the upgrade once I had ordered mine, but after using it, is in my opinion well worth the upgrade. Plus you will have a lens that is consistent across its range at 2,8.
I am really looking forward to using this lens

I made that same move several years ago, and you'll definitely be able to tell a difference. The Tamron lens has a very very good reputation, and for good reason. The only negatives (if you consider them as such) are that it's noisy when focusing, and the zoom ring turns the opposite way from the Canons. You may not care about either, though. But it's optically a very good lens. On the long end, it's a long way from the 18-55's f/5.6 to the 17-50's f/2.8. You'll be able to do some things with it that the kit lens cannot do.

An f2.8 17-50/55mm lens (like Tamron) can realistically replace both the kit lens, and the nifty-fifty (at 50mm f/2.8 it's a pretty decent portrait lens; nifty-fifty is not very useable below f/2.2 anyway) - so you'll have to change your lenses less frequently - which means fewer lost opportunities for a shot.

Imo, you won't see much of a difference and the Tamron is LOUD. I'd save up for a sigma 17-50 OS.

The only thing you will gain is constant f/2.8 and a modest build quality improvement. You'll loose IS and possibly AF stability. Your wallet will certainly be lighter. IMHO you'd be better to save up for a decent lens (ie, not Tamron) or keep the Canon kit lens.

domat wrote in post #12770991
Maybe I should have asked this before my purchase. Just won an auction for the 17-50 non vc. Now I wonder if it will really be a big change. I am fairly sure that they both will last so build quality is not a factor to me. Faster focusing would be nice but the nifty 50 gets bad rap for having slow focus and yet I get decent action shots like these

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1068201.

I get sharp images with my kit lens but not as sharp as I see with other lenses but I always wonder how much is user and PP vs the actual lens. occasionally seeing some putrid pictures posted by some like the ones I saw today using a 5dII and 70-200 2.8 is makes me think it is the former.
Well I can always sell it.
Thanks for listening to me rambling on.

For me it was a significant step up having a sharp f2.8
I use to try these shots with a tripod now I can just handhold with the Tamron and the pics look better

e.g.
XSi (450D) with Tamron 17-50 2.8
f2.8
at ISO 1600
handheld

The Tamron 28-75 f2.8 was my first lens purchase and the difference in IQ between it and the kit lens was immediately apparent. I quite using my kit lens for everything but video (for the IS). For photos the kit lens doesn't get used unless mandatory for wider range.

For some reason i knew i would find a christmas choir in this topic. :P Watt100, you're sure fond of that image :P

But to answer the OP; Yes.

I agree with twoshadows: relative to other lenses, it is a loud sucker. That and the reverse zoom ring direction eventually became annoying enough that I moved on. Mine made enough focusing noise that at times it caused people in a quiet room to turn and look when I was trying to get a candid shot. Canon's 17-55mm f/2.8 was great on a crop, and then I got a 28-70L for my current FF body. The image quality difference is there, but it's not enormous. The quiet operation and better build are welcome!

Yes you will see a difference in IQ .

Whenever I raise this question myself, I look at my travel photos of Rome and Oslo. I then go out an buy a lens that will complement, but not replace the 18-55IS. The last one I got was the Tokina 12-24.
If you are unhappy with the photos your kit lens gives you, get an upgrade.
I use zoom lenses for travel, and rely on primes for most other things. For me, it is not worth getting another general purpose "normal" zoom right now. If you want f2.8 for indoor photography, then it makes sense to get the Tamron, if it will do well at f2.8. I tend to use fast primes for this environment. You may prefer a relatively "fast' zoom for the same purpose.
I like the results I get from the 18-55IS, and I thought that your photos of your dog were pretty good.