17-50/2.8 OS or 24-70/2.8 VC?

Looking for a faster walk-around lens and really struggling to decide between these two.

I've been using 24-105 as my walk-around in my 7D, but wanted something faster, which led me to these two. Having trouble deciding which of these would fit my needs better.

Most of what I shoot is my family, I also have 70-200/2.8 for tele & 8mm if I ever need to go really wide.

Thoughts? The 24-70 is about $130 more used, than the 17-50 is new... Is better build/better IS worth the extra $130?

There seem to be s me det ils mis ing.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18590452
There seem to be s me det ils mis ing.

Updated...

do you mean the Sigma 17-50 OS or the canon 17-55IS
I assume you are talking the tamron 24-70
Isnt the Tamron used about $650
the Sigma 17-50 I see go used for about $225 mint and new they are like $350 so that seems to be a bit more then $130

well that is a pretty good deal if its in good shape. the Big question can you live with 24mm on the wide end on an APS-c body

05Xrunner wrote in post #18590472
the Sigma 17-50 I see go used for about $225 mint and new they are like $350 so that seems to be a bit more then $130

Geez. I didn’t realize how worthless my 17-50 had become over the years. I have not used the Tamron 24-70 VC, but I wouldn’t part with my 17-50 OS for $350 much less $225.

OP,
Sigma 17-50mm is very good. Very good at center of frame wide open at all FL's. Sharp at 50mm wide open. I used to have grey market very sharp copy. I sold it and bought one with warranty. I was not happy with the this one. I sent it to Sigma for caliberation. 17-50mm zoom range covers lot of cases.

nrowensby wrote in post #18590445
Looking for a faster walk-around lens and really struggling to decide between these two.

I've been using 24-105 as my walk-around in my 7D, but wanted something faster, which led me to these two. Having trouble deciding which of these would fit my needs better.

Most of what I shoot is my family, I also have 70-200/2.8 for tele & 8mm if I ever need to go really wide.

Thoughts? The 24-70 is about $130 more used, than the 17-50 is new... Is better build/better IS worth the extra $130?

If faster is the goal, why are you looking at relatively slow lenses? Faster is available, if you go to primes.

I wanted a faster zoom for walk-around, as I prefer some flex with my walk-around lens... By faster, I meant faster than the 24-105 I was using...

Have 35/2 and 50/1.4 for primes.

105 on crop yields approx 170, while 70 is approx 110. that's a big difference. Lots of people do not think the 24-105 "works" on a crop, but I have enjoyed it as a walk around on both FF and crop.

I also think that f/4 vs 2.8 is usually not a huge difference ... unless you are regularly shooting very high ISO ... because DOF/OOF is not going to change a lot with most scenes.

If you are willing to carry the 70-200, I'd go with the 17-50. If you want to carry a single lens, I'd stay where you are.

nrowensby wrote in post #18590983
I wanted a faster zoom for walk-around, as I prefer some flex with my walk-around lens... By faster, I meant faster than the 24-105 I was using...

Have 35/2 and 50/1.4 for primes.

Just my opinion, but going from f/4 to f/2.8 is hardly worth the huge expense for the faster zooms. I get by OK with 18-135 & 70-300 II (both nano-USM) variable aperture zooms. I've got 24A, 35IS, 85 1.8, 135L for those times I need faster glass.

I used to own 24-70 2.8, and 70-200 f/2.8. Again, just my opinion, but neither was worth the cost or weight differential. One stop is a small bit of light for a big pile of money. But, if you need it, you need it.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18590995
105 on crop yields approx 170, while 70 is approx 110. that's a big difference. Lots of people do not think the 24-105 "works" on a crop, but I have enjoyed it as a walk around on both FF and crop.

I also think that f/4 vs 2.8 is usually not a huge difference ... unless you are regularly shooting very high ISO ... because DOF/OOF is not going to change a lot with most scenes.

If you are willing to carry the 70-200, I'd go with the 17-50. If you want to carry a single lens, I'd stay where you are.

Agree about the 24-105 on crop. I used a 24-105 for about 2 years on crop bodies. Works just fine.

nrowensby wrote in post #18590983
I wanted a faster zoom for walk-around, as I prefer some flex with my walk-around lens... By faster, I meant faster than the 24-105 I was using...

Have 35/2 and 50/1.4 for primes.

Have you though about getting the Sigma 18-35/1.8 and selling the 35/2? Then keep the 24-105 for the longer stuff but also have the much faster 18-35 for the wider stuff.