convince me..... 18-55mm kit to 17-50mm tamron

should i do it? i have the canon 18-55mm kit lens for my xsi currently. while it's a decently lens, i keep hearing great things about the tamron 17-50mm lens. i've read up on the reviews, as well as done a good bit of research here, but the lack of IS (or VC) tends to bug me just a little and considering i already HAVE a pretty decent EF-S 18-55mm lens, i want to ensure that my spending the additional $400+ is a worthwhile investment. obviously the fixed f/2.8 is a plus. it would basically serve as my indoor/social gatherings lens, as my 50mm f1/8 prime works well, but the fixed 50mm can be cumbersome at times (just my opinion).

looking down the road, i envision pulling in a 70-200mm IS f/2.8L for my premier telephoto, a 100-400mm canon (although the "dust pump" nickname makes me nervous), a 100mm f/2.8 macro lens, and maybe a sigma 10-20mm lens. might i have all my bases covered at that point?

anyway, my current focus seems to be on the tamron 17-50mm. with rumors about the 70-200mm IS f/2.8L being "obsoleted" though, that might play into my decision as well. gotta see.

any tips or recommendations on which path to go much appreciated. although the canon 17-55mm IS is a bit out of my price range for now.

It's a great lens, you can't go wrong. And I am not just saying that because i have one for sale, it really is a great lens.

With the focal range and speed of the lens why do you need IS? ok for night time shots but get a tripod. I say get the 17-50 i had the kit lens and would much rater have the tamron mounted anyday I never really liked the IS on my kit lens or never had to use it, now on my 70-200 some times i want it

dipps wrote in post #7770719
, i want to ensure that my spending the additional $400+ is a worthwhile investment. obviously the fixed f/2.8 is a plus. it would basically serve as my indoor/social gatherings lens, as my 50mm f1/8 prime works well

Do you find yourself using the 50 at around f/2.8 or even wider? If wider, the 17-50 f/2.8 isn't really going to help you with indoor shots. You'll want a flash or a wide prime, such as the 28 f/1.8 or Sigma 30 f/1.4. If f/2.8 is good enough, then it's worth it. Now, I'm basing my opinion on the Canon 17-55 f/2.8, which I own - I've never used the Tamron.

it is very very good lens. Excellent iq, light, fast. It should be a pretty big jump from the kit lens. Good luck!

Don't worry about the lack of IS, go for it. It's definitely a huge step up from that lens.

yep, got that covered by my 430EX II. i like to shoot without flash as much as possible, but it's there for me to use when circumstances require.

lamont, gpfury, thanks. originally i was heckbent on getting the f2/8 L 70-200mm, but with the recent rumors, i'm holding off a bit (was also waiting for rebates). just trying to get over the hump of spending $400 to get a lens i basically "already have" (though not truly true).

http://www.flickr.com …billymcvicker/3​408623776/

http://www.flickr.com …billymcvicker/3​405249263/

http://www.flickr.com …/billymcvicker/​3344892515

Just some random shots I've gotten with it....image quality is great. Definitely better than the kit lens.

I went from the 18-55 (non-IS) to the Canon 17-85 IS to the Tamron 17-50. If I would have found POTN sooner than I did, I would have skipped the 17-85 step in the middle. Although I liked the 17-85 focal-length range, at f4-5.6 it was too slow for my primary indoor lens. I like the constant f2.8 of the Tamron, and now find I don't miss the 51-85mm as much as I thought I would.

The only think I liked about the 17-85 better than the Tamron was the USM focusing. The 17-85 kicks butt over the 17-50 in focus speed (the louder noise of the Tamron doesn't bother me, and you get used to it after a while).

I also found 85mm was too short for my traveling walk-around lens. So when I sold my 17-85, I took the money and got a 28-135 IS (from another POTN member) to use as my outdoor walk-around lens.

The pros and cons that made me go for the 40D + 17-50 rather than 450D + 18-55 IS (neglecting the 40D/450D difference for now, even though that's blasphemy);

Aperture
Constant 2.8 aperture versus variable 3.5-5.6.
Oddly enough, I'd care less if my aperture were F5.6 at 18mm, since I'll be using that end on landscape more. I'd want it to be able to open up at the longer end, like 35-55mm. The Tamron with it's 2.8 does an excellent job at close up and portraits in low / natural light. More or less voids my need for a 50mm prime anyway.

Build quality
Neither has stunning build quality, but the tamron feels a lot better.
Still versus rotating front element: Planning to ever use a polarization filter? prepare to be annoyed with the 18-55's rotating front element. It annoyed the hell out of me.
Manual focus is better on the Tamron, it feels better (as long as you remember to set the switch, otherwise you get that annoying grinding noise ) To be honest though, I never use it.
Filter size: 58mm (18-55) is cheaper than 67 (17-50). Nuff said :P
Lens hood: Tamron includes it, Canon doesn't.

Optics
Apart from the Tamron's bigger aperture, both are sharp lenses. However, getting the right DoF is something that the 18-55 simply can't always do.
It does have IS going for it though, but I didn't really notice it helping THAT much on shorter focal lengths.

Taken with my trusty Tammy:
https://photography-on-the.net …?p=7669188&post​count=1145

I haven't had much experience with IS (only had my 28-135 IS for 2 months before upgrading) but I don't miss it. The f/2.8 I believe is much more versatile than a slow lens with IS.

I would suggest you buy used. No need to buy brand new.
I don't think you really need any more convincing. Unless you're debating on getting the 17-55 IS, there really isn't much more to think about.

(its 6.14AM here, and i am just ending my night shift at the hospital so please bare with the fact that i am really sleepy and i am just going to point form this stuff out)

-have you considered buy a flash instead? I am not talking about on camera flash work, but i am talking about off camera flash work such as vivitar 285hvs? if i could do it all over again, i'd get off camera flash work first... you'd realize that a lot of your photos will be in f5.6 and f8, which is perfect for your lens.

-have you considered buying a 28-75 instead? do you like the wide aspect? if you do a lot more portraits, then you might appreciate something that is longer in FL? consider the 28-75 or the 24-70

-have you considered buy a 50mm f1.8, someone in this forum has said, "90% of all problems can be solved with a 50mm f1.8" LOL he is somewhat right LOL

the reason why i say all this is because of the fact that i had this lens once...

its great whenever you feel like wasting time hunting in the dark. you'll hear the whiny motor... you'd like that. actually i have no time to be sarcastic... so i am just going to be straight up - I HATE THIS LENS.

-FOR CRAP BUILD QUALITY (unless you like the whiny motor, the maximum amount of noise i can live with comes from a 11-16mm f2.8, the hood is non-felted)

-HUNTS HUNTS HUNTS HUNTS HUNTS HUNTS.... and again... HUNTS HUNTS HUNTS. it just loves to hunt! its exciting... NOT REALLY. i hate it because its ridiculous under lowlight

- 67MM filter... if you want a CPL, then you're gonna have to buy a 67mm CPL. (unless you buy a step up filter)... At least it should have been a 77mm filter so that i can use my other filters for my other 77mm lenses

-LACK OF IS... well i am not really bothered by this mainly because of the fact that his lens costs only 420, but yeah i realized that i need IS on my lenses. its something id sure appreciate. (which is why i bought the 17-55mm f2.8 IS)

i think thats all i have to say... have a great day... i am going to ghome soon.. i am tired.... and my eyes hurt already... its been a long 12 hour shift.. i am off in 30.

not as familiar with this "off camera flash" type stuff yet. trying to figure out how i'd go about using off camera flash setup's to catch impromptu shots of friends/relatives/kids while meandering around at birthday parties and social gatherings.....?? not saying it's a bad idea, i'm not just practiced at it (haven't ever done it).

i have considered the 28-75 based on some conversations here, yes. seems most discussions lead to the 50mm. my wife's side of the family is pretty big, so the 17mm will likely come in handy at times in tighter spaces. lol additionally, i keep considering maybe going with a 40D, and if i do, i can get the 28-135mm kit lens with the 40D for almost $150 cheaper than buying it separate, so there's that.

yes, already have the 1.8 (see my sig line..... although maybe i didn't type it in there correctly, lol). great lens. but there's times when i wish i could zoom in or out rather than reposition myself 20 feet back.

and now we get to the part where you HATE THIS LENS. zoiks. not sure i had heard anyone have such harsh things to say about this lens up until now. hunting? yeah, not fun. i've dealt with that on some other canon lenses in low light. lack of usm? no experience, but don't think it would totally bug me.

I had a crappy copy of the 28-75 Tammy, sounds similar to the "hatred" above, but I've not had anything but good experience with the 17-50 nor has anyone I have talked to. There are bound to be a few bad copies out there. For the money it is a fantastic piece of glass. Just depends on what you NEED/WANT. I got it originally for similar reasons, needed a faster lens for use in tighter spaces, so 17mm at f2.8 seemed like a good way to go. At the time 28mm was not wide enough for me. The motor is noisy, but no one notices it unless you're a stalker and you need to be ultra quiet.

That said the 28-135 is a completely different lens. I had that before the 17-50 and I did not like it at all. 28 wasn't wide enough for me at the time, though it would be now. But it was VERY soft on the long end and the build quality is crappy for the money compared to the Tamrons and Sigmas out there. I didn't keep mine very long. Plus it's not very fast, though a flash indoors solves that. The 28-135 is a kit lens in my opinion and isn't even built as well as the other kit lenses.

If you don't know what you want then think about renting a few options for a week at a time or so and play with them. Or find someone local that will let you try theirs out.

don't mind marloon. He has the 17-55 IS which is obviously superior to the Tamron 17-50, but at 2x-3x the price.

Build quality is great. It feels sturdy in your hands and feels great as well. Anything more sturdy would add to the weight of the lens, and I personally wouldn't like that.

I have to be honest, it does hunt a bit, not more than you kit lens, most likely. I keep this lens on about 90% of the time and a lot of the time is spent indoors and in other than optimal lighting. I haven't had a problem with it yet where I missed a shot because it didn't focus on my subject.

People say the 67mm is an odd size, but I find it ideal! Not only can I use my CPL on the Tammy, but also on the 70-200 F4L that I have, which is also 67mm.

No IS? Well I guess that could be a major drawback if you're used to having IS and shooting 1/6 seconds handheld. But honestly, you don't really need it as much as you think. Look at the 24-70L vs the 24-105L IS. If not having IS was such a dealbreaker, no one would even consider buying the 24-70L, which in many respects is considered to be better than the 24-105L.

Marloon has some very good points and you should appreciate someone who isn't satisfied with the 17-50 like myself and many others, but he has the 17-55 IS, which is the best of the best. If you can't afford it, the Tamron is a very close second.