17-55, 17-40... Prime... Tamron... am I crazy?

Hello, friends and photographers!

Well, my apologies if this is more of a blog-like post, but it's something I've been meaning to discuss. As you may have read while perusing some of the other related threads, I had the chance to spend a day with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. A friend of mine purchased it and I was considering saving for it because a (different) friend of mine and I are finishing up our photography degrees (actually, she already received hers) and are going to try shooting weddings as a pair when we add more low-light-friendly equipment/spares to our kits. I took many pictures with the 17-55 and, well, it left me feeling less than excited about it. The pictures were sharp and the IS was a nice feature, but I feel as if the photos were just missing something I couldn't quite place my finger on. (Forgive the web compression) I always believe in doing more real-world tests with lenses rather than charts and whatnot..

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

From personal experience with the Tamron 17-50, this lens provided me with good results. f/2.8 helped me out so much in low light, although I did wish it was longer...I used it with my 350D so the colors didn't really come at me. I suppose you'd get similar impressions with it as the Canon 17-55 IS.

Looks like you have a good interests in primes. Since portraits are usually best suited around the 80mm range why not try and invest in a prime lens around 100mm? You already got the 50mm which is good for portraits and bodyshots.

EOSBoy, I am planning on grabbing the 85mm 1.8 in addition to one of the lenses above (thank you, Economic Stimulus, for hating TurboTax and delaying my payment!).

I too have the same thing - my 17-50 is absolutely fine, but the 70-200 just churns out the most spectacular contrast and coloring. Spoiled, I think, is the operative word

I have the 24-70L and I can say that it is a very good lens in conjunction with the 17-40L. My only complaint with it is that the AF is a little slow. Its also a good lens for portraits/headshots. Its the second most used lens when I'm shooting models and portraits (first being the 70-200). Color and contrast on the 24-70L is equal to if not better than the 17-40L.

Perhaps a tad off topic but I own the Sigma 18-50 EX 2.8 and for the price of that glass I am finding it to be a very capable lens. This lens appears NOT to have as much love as the Tamron 17-50 but for the price of either of those 3rd party lenses its great glass for the money. Throw a non L prime like the 85 1.8 and you'll have a nice bag of gear but 2 lenses for the price of 1 canon 17-55IS.

If you go full frame you wont feel too guilty spending reasonably affordable non compatible glass like the tamron or sigma in the 17(18)- xx range zooms.

Feet zooming is the only question you should be asking yourself while using primes. For your landscape, headshot and portrait work you have some time to compose your shots. Spending big coin on a 70-200 2.8IS may be a versatile zoom with prime qualities for your headshot and portrait work.

Check out this thread and my contribution to it:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=509399

I am in the same boat as you - I've used the 17-40 as my workhorse for the past 3-4 years and the IQ from it is awesome. I do shoot weddings so F/2.8 is a MUST (more like a MINIMUM). I shot all last season with the Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 - IQ is very good on this lens but the noisy and often times inaccurate focus made me sell it off. I then picked up a 17-55 F/2.8 IS and was not wowed by it. The sharpness was about the same as the tamron but AF was much better. I quickly let it go (perhaps too soon) and picked up the 24-70L. This lens has the same color/contrast and sharpness I'd come to expect from the 17-40, however I can't get used to it's range - it's not wide or long enough for my uses - I call it "boring land", and I despise switching between it and the 17-40 constantly.

The point I'm at right now is I'm either going to pick up another Tamron 17-50 for this season and live with the compromises (loud AF, hunting in low-light, inaccurate focus at times) or give the 17-55 IS a second try. If it's just needing saturation/contrast I can easily add that in post.

I recently purchased a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for use on my Rebel XTi and am thrilled with it - both the range and the IQ. I also considered and tried the Canon 17-55, but couldn't justify the cost and didn't like the weight. I bought a used Tamron for one-quarter of the price of a new 17-55 here in Canada. It's a very nice lens.

The 17-55 is definitely cooler than the 24-70 as far as IQ, but absolutely nothing that cannot be tweaked a little in camera in your style modes, or in a few minutes of post processing. For me, my main decisions in trading my 24-70 for the 17-55 were:

a) ability to get tack sharp images. If you really miss and get a blurry image, there's not much that can be done in post. Colors and brightness can always be adjusted. Sharpness, only to a point

b) needed the wide. On my 30D, there is no way that the 24mm is wide enough

c) needed AF that was just as fast as the 24-70. The 17-55's AF is awesome

try sigma 30mm f/1.4
nice contrast , great colour, reasonable colour, what else do we need
:P

I wouldn't recommend the Tamron 17-50 if you plan on doing weddings. That thing has a clearly audible AF whine. The 17-55 is just shy of L color and contrast, but it is certainly as good or better than the 85 1.8 in terms of IQ.
I would get a standard zoom first and add a prime when you can, and I'd go with either the 24-70 or the 17-55. USM is worth paying for...there is no point in owning a low light lens that can't focus in low light. The L primes are great really great, but I'm not sure I'd put that much money into one focal length right away. As a pro, you'll probably want a 70-200 2.8 in your kit.

Hey, the Canon 18-200 f/1.4 IS USM has just been announced...
Kidding, of course. I guess now I'm debating between the 24-70 and the 17-55. My pros and cons of each are:
24-70:
- A bit long on my 40D, but I have the 17-40 to back me up for landscape purposes
- USM, f/2.8
- Compatibility with my EOS 3, and for a photography major, that may be the selling point.

17-55:
- IS
- F/2.8
- NOT compatible with my EOS 3

My next task should be to try the 24-70 since I've already tried the 17-55 and go from there.

This response is really rushed because I have to leave for work in 11 minutes. Maybe what I NEED is to forget stinking work!! No, kidding, then I wouldn't be able to commit to ANY lenses! :P

madhatter04 wrote in post #5598622
Hey, the Canon 18-200 f/1.4 IS USM has just been announced...
Kidding, of course. I guess now I'm debating between the 24-70 and the 17-55. My pros and cons of each are:
24-70:
- A bit long on my 40D, but I have the 17-40 to back me up for landscape purposes
- USM, f/2.8
- Compatibility with my EOS 3, and for a photography major, that may be the selling point.

17-55:
- IS
- F/2.8
- NOT compatible with my EOS 3

My next task should be to try the 24-70 since I've already tried the 17-55 and go from there.

This response is really rushed because I have to leave for work in 11 minutes. Maybe what I NEED is to forget stinking work!! No, kidding, then I wouldn't be able to commit to ANY lenses! :P

The 17-55 has USM and FTM focus. That's common between both

Yeah, that list was very rudimentary and half-baked. lol.

Well, thanks for all who replied. I just viewed photos I took (with my friend's camera) at a friend's birthday party and was shocked at how well the low-light photos came out with F/2.8 and IS with the 17-55. I am sure I can edit picture styles and whatnot to fit my imperial color standards (lol), so I think I'm going to
1) Save up for the 17-55 (won't take long)
2) Acquire the 85mm F/1.8 at some point

That way, I would have the 17-40L, 50mm 1.4, and 85 mm 1.8 giving me a nice range on my EOS 3, and those plus the 17-55 for use on my 40D and backup. I think that sounds quite lovely.

Here's one of the shots that WOWed me. The ability to shoot this wide, indoors, at a restaurant isn't something I've experienced yet. By the way, my friend was also thrilled because I taught her how to set white balance. THat's me on the right!

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'