ANY LENS BETTER THAN CANON 17-55 f/2.8?

I think my Sigma would take the Canon, It's that sharp.

jrbdmb wrote in post #15803558
Please define "better". I can make arguments that the 24-105L, 24-70 2.8L, 24-70 4.0L, and EFS 15-85 are all "better", depending on what it is you are looking for.

Sir,
I am sorry for not to specify my question. I am a new photographer who seeking for data on lenses ranging between 15-70mm. I could not find anything better than Canon 17-55 f/2.8. My question covers something like:
1. Optic material used
2. Build
3. Sharpness,
4. CA and vignetting
5. Distortion,
6. Tonal rendition
7. Focussing ability
8. Versaility
Thanks so much for all kind responses.

Langin wrote in post #15806510
Sir,
I am sorry for not to specify my question. I am a new photographer who seeking for data on lenses ranging between 15-70mm. I could not find anything better than Canon 17-55 f/2.8. My question covers something like:
1. Optic material used
2. Build
3. Sharpness,
4. CA and vignetting
5. Distortion,
6. Tonal rendition
7. Focussing ability
8. Versaility
Thanks so much for all kind responses.

Since materials and build are #1 and #2 on your list and speed and range are dead last (assuming they could speak to versatility), then the 24-104 (along with almost any L or quality prime) is vastly superior to the 17-55. Some may say that the 17-55 is sharper, but in my experience when shooting both was that my 24-105 was better in the center and in the corners. This was on a 20D, not my current 7D.

-Fernando

I had the Canon 17-55. If I was buying again, I would go with the Sigma to save money. The Canon was fine, but nothing special. I like my 24-105 a lot more for my use, and it's noticeably sharper.

Mackeral wrote in post #15805267
I purchased the Tamron due to being what I could afford at the time. It's my go to walk-around lens but I'm seriously considering changing to the Canon.

+1 on this.