Tamron 17-50 F2.8 non vc OR Canon 15-85 F3.5-5.6 IS

Which lens would you recommend for better quality and sharpness from the two lens mentioned above?

Sharpness is a moot comparison between these two, it comes down to constant vs variable aperture and range.

Each to their own.

I own both of these lenses. As kin2son says, IQ is not the comparison between them. If I need f/2.8, I mount the Tamron. Then I leave it on until I need more than 50mm focal length. Back and forth. I have no intentions of selling either of them.

If I had to get rid of one, it would be the 15-85. I have the focal length range covered with other glass. I don't have any other f/2.8 in that range, so I'd keep the Tamron.

For what I shoot (portraits, macro, flowers - not scenery) an 85/5.6 lens makes no sense at all. Tamron and f/2.8 for me.

The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non VC is my main everyday lens.
It's very sharp for the money.
In fact it's sharper than my Canon 24mm prime.

To be honest no matter what lens you use the length/width is never enough.
If I need more length I just change the lens.

Tamron: advantages are constant aperture, lighter weight, lower cost expensive.

Canon: advantages: wider range at both ends (2mm at the short end is noticable), IS, USM focusing, full-time manual focusing.

I have the Sigma 17-50 and sometimes wonder if the 15-85 would not have been the better buy for the range on both ends. If you already have a prime in the 30-50 range I'd go straight for the Canon. What else have you got?

For the sharpness is a toss up. You have to ask yourself if you are going to do a lot of low light shooting or outdoors. I personally love the 17-50.

I'm going through the same decision, however I can get the Tamron for $200 while the Canon is roughly $400 more. I don't know if the extra focal lenth will be missed if I choose the tamron over the canon.

stever1000 wrote in post #16139597
I'm going through the same decision, however I can get the Tamron for $200 while the Canon is roughly $400 more. I don't know if the extra focal lenth will be missed if I choose the tamron over the canon.

Where can you get the tamron for $200?

supaman wrote in post #16140522
Where can you get the tamron for $200?

I was going to ask the same thing!

for better quality and sharpness the canon 15-85
for the low light the Tamron 17-50 and its a good quality

supaman wrote in post #16140522
Where can you get the tamron for $200?

I live in S Korea...so this website is super accessible for some things...

http://item2.gmarket.c​o.kr …word_order=Tamr​on+17-50mm

stever1000 wrote in post #16142153
I live in S Korea...so this website is super accessible for some things...

http://item2.gmarket.c​o.kr …word_order=Tamr​on+17-50mm

Wow, I'd be all over that in a heartbeat.

The Tamron is a great value but will hunt and have AF challenges in low light. I learned to compensate for it most of the time. I upgraded to the Sigma 17-50mm OS two years ago and have been very pleased! Better build and much more reliable AF. Happy Shopping!