Comparison between Canon 17-55 2.8 and Tamron 17-50?

Looking into getting a walkaround for my sister since she's still using the original kit lens (no IS). I'm wondering if there's any comparison pictures between these two. I know the Canon adds IS but the Tamron is a fraction of the price and would enable me to get her some desperately needed accessories (Messenger bag since she carries around my older XTi around her neck, memory card, etc).

Optically, the Tamron is a great lens. What you would gain with the 17-55 is the IS, full time manual focus and ring USM for faster focusing. If she doesn't do a ton of low light shooting, the the Tamron will be a great lens for her. If she were shooting in a ton of low light situations, the Tamron would hunt to focus where the 17-55 would lock right on.

Sharpness-wise there's nothing between them, they're both sharp lenses. Colour wise I understand the Tamron is ever-so-slightly warmer than the Canon.

The Canon is probably a better indoor lens for the reasons TaDa mentioned, but there is a substantial difference in price so you need to work out if the extra things the Canon brings to the table are worth it, seeing as the IQ is so similar.

I you don't go for the 17-55 to start with you'll have a tough time upgrading. I did and I still haven't upgraded. Adding IS and USM for more than twice of what I paid for the Tamron seems quite unreasonable.

JoYork wrote in post #6019102
Sharpness-wise there's nothing between them, they're both sharp lenses. Colour wise I understand the Tamron is ever-so-slightly warmer than the Canon.

The Canon is probably a better indoor lens for the reasons TaDa mentioned, but there is a substantial difference in price so you need to work out if the extra things the Canon brings to the table are worth it, seeing as the IQ is so similar.

If you're using custom white balance or click balancing in RAW (and you SHOULD be) there should be no issues with color rendering. I still have a hard time understanding how clear glass elements can produce a color cast one way or the other though.

I bought a 17-55 to replace my Tamron, and the Tamron was sharper. (I sent the 17-55 back) May have had a bad 17-55, but even at the best, they are very, very similar optically.

forkball wrote in post #6019256
If you're using custom white balance or click balancing in RAW (and you SHOULD be) there should be no issues with color rendering. I still have a hard time understanding how clear glass elements can produce a color cast one way or the other though.

The 17-55 is made up of different glass and has the Super Spectra coating. Different glass and different coatings will produce a slightly different image.

I have the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and it is good. One bonus with the Tamron is they throw in a lens hood too. You need to pay extra for the hood with the Canon.

Also, I would prefer having IS with the longer lenses. For the shorter lens like the 17-50, working without IS isn't a significant disadvantage.

Thanks for the tips so far guys. She just had a baby girl less than 2 weeks ago so I think it's safe to say that she's going to be shooting indoors for the near future. I am giving her a nifty fifty for low light portraits of her daughter but I want to get her something that she can still use now but can grow on her when she starts to go out with her daughter. She's a stay at home mom so she's already planning on going to the park with her daughter (right across the street) and taking some short trips. They live in Philadelphia right near Independence Hall so there are a lot of outdoor and indoor historical sites which I think they will be visiting.

As far as post processing, she does very little, if at all. I don't think she has the time to sit and do anything major and I'm pretty sure that she shoots exclusively in JPEG for the file space. Any additional insight would be appreciated.

I purchased my Tamron 17-50 when my daughter was about 4 months old. It's by far my most used lens, and I really like it.

IS will be useless for an infant unless she's sleeping or being held. I have a 3 month old, and when she's active, she's bopping her head, waving her arms, moving all around...it's difficult to get a shot at anything under 1/80s that doesn't have motion blur, so be aware.

Jman13 wrote in post #6019608
IS will be useless for an infant unless she's sleeping or being held. I have a 3 month old, and when she's active, she's bopping her head, waving her arms, moving all around...it's difficult to get a shot at anything under 1/80s that doesn't have motion blur, so be aware.

How about the 17-50 and a flash unit? It will be great for freezing kids if she can deal with the hot spots on the child. The price will be almost the same as the IS but it allows for usage in more situations.

Flash will work great! I tend to use fast primes for her (50 f/1.4, 35 f/2), as I prefer low light shooting without flash, but bounced flash is really good with kids. The Tammy works fine, I just wanted to say that the IS on the 17-55 won't be of much use with infants, because they won't stay still for 1/10s, even if you can eliminate camera shake at that speed.

That seems a nice plan. A nifty fifty and Tamron 17-50. Tammy is also lighter than the IS and might be better balanced with XTi.

Jman I understand where you're getting at. camera shake is the enemy and that is why I suggested a flash unit. Not everyone has good steady hands and there are times we need super clear shots of the children and bounced flash like you said is great.

It would be best to get a flash now since there may be a time when she wont want to miss a picture of her child indoors. i'm sure low light shooting is great for advance photographers but for someone who does no post editing and just likes to point and shoot, a flash can help greatly.