Canon 17-55 IS vs. Tamron 28-75

I have a 40d crop body with a Tamron 28-75 lens, which I am very pleased with. I mostly photograph people, family, friends etc, both outdoors and indoors. The only issue I have is with indoor photography in small rooms. The tammy is a little bit to long for that in many cases. And I also would like to easier get good photos in low light conditions when it is inappropriate or hard to use a flash. So my question is to help me compare my tammy with the 17-55. If you think it is worth it I might replace the tammy and make the 17-55 my "walk-around" lens.

How is the sharpness? Center and corners.

Bokeh?

Build quality on the lens?

Suited for portraits?

Suited for indoor photo in low light. How much better does the IS make the lens compared to the tammy? Possible to photo with longer exposure times without blur?

Price worth? Is the 17-55 good enough so it will be worth the money to replace the tammy with? Because, to be honest, it isnt the cheapest piece of glass for an enthusiast like me.

It would be great to have people with real life experience of both these lenses to anwer my questions. Thank you!

I have both lenses. I find that I like the 28-75 paired with my 10-22 for lightest weight travel outfit...lighter than 10-22 with 17-55. The FL at the long end is also handier. For vacation shooting, the time it takes to switch lenses is not rushed.

But for shooting weddings I could not live with 28-75; the 17-55 is a far superior one-lens wedding coverage configuration! The 10-22 only comes out for scene-setting shots, not group photography.

I think of the 17-55 as a 'normal zoom' and the 28-75 as a 'short tele zoom', so the 28-75 would go onto the camera first, for portraiture work.

I tested the 28-75 and 17-55 at 55mm for low light focus. I found that both fail to focus at the same light level. One EV brighter than that failure level, the Tamron would hunt while the Canon would focus without hunting.

IS does not solve subject motion, it only solves photographer shakiness! IS does work even at the wide end, helps to provide shooting in 3-4 EV lower light levels. Price is well worth it.

I thought I would sell the 28-75 after buying the 17-55, but it is so nice for travel that I decided to keep it!

I don't have any of the lenses, but this might help

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …p=0&CameraComp=​0&Lens=404

you can compare both lenses side to side (sort of)

Hope this helps

I love the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. i use it in conjunction with a 70-200mm f/4L IS as my go-to travel and general photography duo on 30D and 40D cameras.

When I used my 24-70mm f/2.8L lens (which is very close you the focal length of your 28-75mm); I found that I really needed a wider lens for every day and travel use. I would either carry three cameras and three lenses or simply bring my 12-24mm f/4 Tokina along and switch the lenses when I needed.

However, when I got my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens; the lens had a wide enough side so I didn't absolutely need the wider lens. I must admit, however; that I am not a great fan of ultra wide lenses and the close to 28mm equivalent of the 17mm focal length is just fine for most of my shooting.

Another advantage of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is that the constant f/2.8 aperture with IS assist makes it a pretty neat low light lens. I did a test recently and found that I could hand hold my 40D with the 17-55mm racked out to 55mm at 1/10 second with very reasonable certainty of decent sharpness. Unfortunately, i did not save the test. But this is in line with Canon's claim of 3 f/stop advantage.

I have carried my 17-55mm as my only lens and am only semi-satisfied with that focal length combination. Although it is wide enough, I really like a lens a bit longer than an 88mm equivalent. I have absolutely no problems when I back that lens up with my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens. I absolutely love the combination and don't seem to miss the 55-70mm gap.

However, if you are willing and able to carry a wider lens, the 28-75mm should certainly be O.K.

Is the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens worth its price? Well it is to me. If you can afford it, it is a great lens. However, it is not the ONLY lens that can be effectively used. The 28-75mm is a great lens as is the 17-50mm Tamron.