Need to upgrade lenses... finally got money

My 50mm 1.8 mark ii is essentially broken (It works, but is problematic). My kit lens is ... a kit lens.

I'm looking at a non-prime lens on a Canon T2i. Budget oriented, so... I'm basically ruling out L glass.

I was thinking a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (VC/non-vc, eh. I doubt I'll see much benefit with VC for the cost.). There's possibility for pretty low light, so the wider the aperture the better obviously. VC would likely do well there, yes? I'm pretty concerned about IQ and CA though. If I am stepping up in the market then I want something that has little CA and some nice IQ. (CA is blatantly obvious in my current lenses)

What kind of filters should I look at? I do photography of people mostly. (They dance and such) Flash is not an option. :/

I was looking at the 17-55 f2.8. It's expensive obviously. What giant benefits are there to that over the tamron?

try considering the sigma 17-50

Get the sigma 17-50. Its better than the tamron VC, and just as good as the canon in terms of IQ, but way cheaper than the latter, and only a tiny bit more expensive than the tamron. The "giant" benefits of the canon 17-55 are the label "canon" on the front, and better AF. That's pretty much it.

You don't need filters for people unless you want to use a wide aperture in bright conditions, then you'll need an ND filter.

Sirrith wrote in post #14708825
Get the sigma 17-50. Its better than the tamron VC, and just as good as the canon in terms of IQ, but way cheaper than the latter, and only a tiny bit more expensive than the tamron. The "giant" benefits of the canon 17-55 are the label "canon" on the front, and better AF. That's pretty much it.

You don't need filters for people unless you want to use a wide aperture in bright conditions, then you'll need an ND filter.

This!

Consider the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 OS as well. I just purchased it and am loving it for the price ($420 right now).

Sirrith wrote in post #14708825
Get the sigma 17-50. Its better than the tamron VC, and just as good as the canon in terms of IQ, but way cheaper than the latter, and only a tiny bit more expensive than the tamron. The "giant" benefits of the canon 17-55 are the label "canon" on the front, and better AF. That's pretty much it.

You don't need filters for people unless you want to use a wide aperture in bright conditions, then you'll need an ND filter.

Do it.

Wooo boy. It's hard to part with that $650 for the sigma. I'll probably break soon. It doesn't seem many people sell Sigma 17-50mm that often.

The Tammy 17-50 is an excellent piece of glass, especially for the price. The non-VC version is a bargain.

sebr wrote in post #14710270
The Tammy 17-50 is an excellent piece of glass, especially for the price. The non-VC version is a bargain.

Yes it is! And I've been seeing loads more people out and about with it recently too

buy used.

Good luck locking focus with the Tamron in low light....

kin2son wrote in post #14710502
Good luck locking focus with the Tamron in low light....

the OP has the 50/1.8 they already have experience.

Canon puts all their effort into their FF "L" lineup; the 17-55 is no slouch nor is the 15-85 but the price tag on both is indicative of their need to recoup development costs.

Sigma has begun to cater lenses to a growing demand for “crop sensor” specific bodies; canon does not offer coverage between the 17-55 and the 70-200, whereas Sigma offers the 50-150 & 120-300 both f/2.8, when grouped with the 17-50 f/2.8 makes for an incredible package.

Sigma offers 95% of the quality of Canon without the huge marketing costs – If your needs demand the absolute best then Canon is worth it; if however, you are like me, the savings Sigma offers, is a better option.

not sure of the sigma, since i dont use them, but my Tamron lenses have been pretty good, especially the 28-75/2.8 ($350 used). The reason this Tamron has virtually the same optical quality as the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 at a MUCH lower price is primarily that it doesn't have USM. that type of focusing is EXPENSIVE, but it's fast and virtually silent.

I tried the canon 17-55, tamron 17-50 and sigma 17-50 at the store... I ended up buying the siggy. IMHO, its IQ, ergonomics and build quality is superior to the tammy and canon (on those specific models at least) .


PS: I don't have it anymore, sold it due to prime lens demands.