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

complete strategy revision. for now anyways. chatting with some other members here about my future lens purchase strategy, i've been somewhat talked out of my jonesin' for the 70-200mm 2.8 IS that i've been drooling over for the past 2 months (long story). as i won't be spending the money on that, i'm considering the 17-55mm 2.8 IS, along with possibly the 100mm 2.8 macro (i'll save a little money with the rebates)..... maybe the 100mm f/2 later this year for indoor sports. OR if i sell my 70-300mm, i may just bank that money and start saving up again for the 70-200.

why not sell your 75-300 and 18-55 get the 17-55 and not get the 100 macro and get the 70-200 f4L and save some money up get your self some great filters to keep dust out of that dust sucker 17-55

the tamron 17-50 is a great lens that will not let you down

I have the 18-55mm is. I have no desire to replace this lens at the moment. It works great and takes fine pictures. If I were basing my decision strictly on iq, it would be an easy decision, keep the canon.

The only real advantage I see with the Tamron, is the constant 2.8. That would be pretty sweet. But even then, it would take better iq for me to make the switch. Like you, I have other hobbies

SUB1IM388 wrote in post #7836373
why not sell your 75-300 and 18-55 get the 17-55 and not get the 100 macro and get the 70-200 f4L and save some money up get your self some great filters to keep dust out of that dust sucker 17-55

wow, that was a mouthful. lol

"dust sucker"? did not know that. i had heard the 100-400mm was a "dust pump", but wasn't aware the 17-55mm had dust sucking issues.

side note, can anyone explain why some cameras are more prone to dust issues?

SUB, any filters you can recommend in particular? i have a B&W polarizing filter in my arsenal right now, but that's about it.

From the samples I've seen the new kit lens is a fine lens. Paired with your 430ex it'll do just fine for most of your needs.

For indoor sports you can pick up the 85/1.8 or the 100/2.0 not much of a difference there. I have the 85 since I need that extra effective 2/3 stop advantage for unflashed candids.

If you use the 70-300, don't sell it.

yeah, i'm gonna give it a chance over the summer (prospective buyer can't buy it right now anyway.... not for 4 or 5 months anyway), and see how it goes. it's pretty good glass up to 240mm, and work great in bright sunny conditions, it's the low light situations where it leaves me wanting (where a fixed 2.8 throughout the zoom would be much more welcome).

dipps wrote in post #7837200
wow, that was a mouthful. lol

"dust sucker"? did not know that. i had heard the 100-400mm was a "dust pump", but wasn't aware the 17-55mm had dust sucking issues.

side note, can anyone explain why some cameras are more prone to dust issues?

SUB, any filters you can recommend in particular? i have a B&W polarizing filter in my arsenal right now, but that's about it.

Do a search on the 17-55 dust that comes thru near the front element. Apparently the seal isn't so great there but the common fix is to put a UV filter on the front and it stops the dust. No biggie.

blssdwlf wrote in post #7837928
Do a search on the 17-55 dust that comes thru near the front element. Apparently the seal isn't so great there but the common fix is to put a UV filter on the front and it stops the dust. No biggie.

thanks. actually read that on photozone's review of the lens as well (this morning)..... their words were "lack of dust and moisture protection", likely due to the non-L build quality (my guess). adding this information to my "database" of lens pro's/con's/usage/etc that i'm building to assist in the decision making process..

dipps wrote in post #7838062
thanks. actually read that on photozone's review of the lens as well (this morning)..... their words were "lack of dust and moisture protection", likely due to the non-L build quality (my guess). adding this information to my "database" of lens pro's/con's/usage/etc that i'm building to assist in the decision making process..

That's good. Just know that you should not get too hung up over the dust problem, or whatever. On the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS you're paying basically 400 bucks more than the Tamron/Sigma 2.8 for IS and Ring USM. If you can live without IS and Ring USM at that focal length, then you can probably get the Tamron/Sigma 2.8s. But your mileage and use may vary.

The Tamron lens is a lot better than the Canon 18-55 IS. I was not happy with my unsharp pictures taken with the 18-55IS, so I bought the Tamron, and it is like entering a new world of sharpness and contrast.

I have both the 18-55 IS and the Tamron 17-50.
I prefer the Tamron, but it is not a night & day difference (until you venture into low light with no flash).

If you are looking to maximize your dollar, then keep the kit lens. There are cheaper Tamron and Sigma versions of the 70-200 f/2.8 than the Canon.... but if f/2.8 isn't that important to you then you might as well go with the Canon 55-250 IS f/3.5-5.6.

kanonshooter wrote in post #7837095
I have the 18-55mm is. I have no desire to replace this lens at the moment. It works great and takes fine pictures. If I were basing my decision strictly on iq, it would be an easy decision, keep the canon.

The only real advantage I see with the Tamron, is the constant 2.8. That would be pretty sweet. But even then, it would take better iq for me to make the switch. Like you, I have other hobbies

The kit lens is nice. The Tamron IS sharper though.


people keep saying its a $420 lens. Its not. Its $350 with free shipping on ebay, and $320 after live rebates of 8%.

Are you talking about New or Refubished? I will jump if it is $320 New. Anyone know if the warranty is good with Tamron by buying it from Ebay? TIA.

Synovia wrote in post #7914488
The kit lens is nice. The Tamron IS sharper though.

people keep saying its a $420 lens. Its not. Its $350 with free shipping on ebay, and $320 after live rebates of 8%.

I just got my 17-50mm, haven't gone out to shoot with it yet, but just a question... If I was to shoot indoors, at a bar, where it's very dark. ISO 1600, aperture 2.8, and a 580EX II being bounced over the ceiling, and even so, the shutter speed is at 1/15.
Will my Tamron do better than my 18-55 IS in this case?