Tamron 17-50f2.8 vs. Canon 18-55IS

How do these lenses compare? The Canon is sharp, with accurate and reasonably fast Af. The IS is useful for low light.
I have read the reviews, but I wonder if you can see any advantage in color, contrast, or sharpness for the Tamron?
How is the AF on the Tamron, especially in low light? Some reviews say that it struggles in low light, especially at the wide end.
What is your experience, and I'd like to hear from people who have both of these lenses.

I had the Tamron non IS for a couple of years and it served me well. Sharp but hunted in low light. Last year I upgraded to the Sigma 17-50mm OS which is stablized. It is much better than the Tamron and just as sharp. For $600 plus around $650 you still save a great deal compared to the Canon.

Happy Shopping!

+1 on the sigma. It is more like the canon 17-55....

artyH wrote in post #15079507
How do these lenses compare? The Canon is sharp, with accurate and reasonably fast Af. The IS is useful for low light.
I have read the reviews, but I wonder if you can see any advantage in color, contrast, or sharpness for the Tamron?
How is the AF on the Tamron, especially in low light? Some reviews say that it struggles in low light, especially at the wide end.
What is your experience, and I'd like to hear from people who have both of these lenses.

the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc is my standard lens, I like the color, contrast, sharpness, etc. For me the AF works good

pic from a week ago in an art museum

XSi (450D)
f2.8
ISO 1600

[QUOTE=watt100;1508050​4]the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc is my standard lens, I like the color, contrast, sharpness, etc. For me the AF works good

pic from a week ago in an art museum

XSi (450D)
f2.8
ISO 1600

This doesn't look like really low light, and I still wonder about the AF in dim lighting at, say, 17mm-24mm.

Although we don't have a shutter speed, ISO = 1600 and f2.8 would likely be low light situation. In addition the lens is wide open and looks decent. Perhaps some distortion indicating "short" on the zoom as opposed to "long."

[QUOTE=artyH;15080673]

watt100 wrote in post #15080504
the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc is my standard lens, I like the color, contrast, sharpness, etc. For me the AF works good

pic from a week ago in an art museum

XSi (450D)
Tamron 17-50
f2.8
ISO 1600

This doesn't look like really low light, and I still wonder about the AF in dim lighting at, say, 17mm-24mm.

XSi (450D)
f 2.8
ISO 2500

If you are to spend 669$ on a Sigma, also consider the 15-85mm as it is only 20$ more. It's not f2.8 but you'll get better IQ over the frame and a lot more focal range.

As for your question, the Tamron is sharper than the 18-55 IS II especially when stopped down. It have f2.8 but no IS. I would not pay 200$ more for the Tamron however iof it's the same price, go for the Tammy!

My 18-55 went after I got the 17-50. Was just no comparison. The 17-50 feels better physically and gives me great sharpness, color, and contrast right out of the camera.

BrickR wrote in post #15081425
My 18-55 went after I got the 17-50. Was just no comparison. The 17-50 feels better physically and gives me great sharpness, color, and contrast right out of the camera.

+1

The only thing I would add is that's not a lens to shoot sports (or other fast moving subjects) with.
The AF is good (a bit better than 18-55) but it has a hard time locking in very low light without focus assist from flash. It's also louder.

This is what happened when a Canon 18-55mm IS lens was used indoors to generate available light images with no flash.

I have been trying to figure out if it is worth it to get a faster lens in this focal length range. It is mainly a travel lens. I have been able to make do with the 18-55IS, but wondered if the Tamron would be worth the extra $425. I already have lots of lenses, so that is why I asked.
The attached photo was taken in Norway, outside of Oslo with another camera that I no longer have. It was the XS with the kit lens.

artyH wrote in post #15083824
I have been trying to figure out if it is worth it to get a faster lens in this focal length range. It is mainly a travel lens. I have been able to make do with the 18-55IS, but wondered if the Tamron would be worth the extra $425. I already have lots of lenses, so that is why I asked.
The attached photo was taken in Norway, outside of Oslo with another camera that I no longer have. It was the XS with the kit lens.

For that type of shot, -- unlikely because the subject is extremely back lit facing away from the light source. The f2.8 is useful if the light is even from different directions or if you want a background blur, e.g.

light overhead -

XSi (450D)
Tamron 17-50
f2.8
ISO 3500