17-55 vs 17-50

I am looking to replace my kit lens and I have narrowed down my decision to the canon 17-55 is and the tamron 17-50. The tamron is obviously easier on the wallet I just don't know how much I'll miss by not getting the 17-55. I've heard so many great things about the 17-55 that I don't want to regret going with the tamron. At the same time if the canon doesn't offer enough of a jump up from the tamron to justify the extra price then why do it. Any thoughts?

if you can afford, just go for ef 17-55. tammy 17-50 is great, but i feel that f2.8 alone isn't good enough for low-light photography. of course, if you can wait, you can go for tamron 17-50 VC (IS), which should be coming out in october or so. but you still won't get USM.

I believe tamron just recently came out with an IS version of the 17-50, so that's something else to consider.

That said, I think the #1 advantage the Canon has over the Tamron is focus speed. The AF on the Canon is ridiculously fast. But if you can live without the AF speed, then I believe the Tamron is a great alternative.

If you have the money, get the 17-55 IS. If not, get the 17-50 and save a lot of money. Or, you can wait for the new Tamron 17-50 with VC and pay around $650 for it, so that puts you somewhere in the middle of the two.

Does anyone know when the new tamron 17-50 with vc is going to be released?

I've never used the tamron but I can definitely confirm the 17-55 is fantastic. If it's not going to sink your savings account (or your credit card) then go with the canon.

Probably Canon is better and it's IS but they are both good lens.

i have the same problem... still cant decide which is to get between Tammy 17-50 VC cost 900$ CAD tax in and Canon 17-55 IS 1300$ CAD tax in

ch40z_008 wrote in post #8824549
i have the same problem... still cant decide which is to get between Tammy 17-50 VC cost 900$ CAD tax in and Canon 17-55 IS 1300$ CAD tax in

At day's end, IMO the Canon is still the cream of the crop here primarily for its ring AF. Part of the overall user experience perk of the Canon is its lightning quick and silent AF.

The Tamron is going to be an optical gem; I'm sure of it. But they don't yet have ring technology and that keeps them inferior still. That said, I'm sure it will still sell well and have its advocates.

I recently picked up the 17-50 and I was pretty surprised at the IQ. It is very sharp and rivals my L lenses with the exception of build. Put it next to the 16-35 II and it looks like a kit lens or a toy. I find the auto focus fine though louder than Canon USM. Great little lens.

you can't beat USM and IS

Tammy 17-50mm VC for sure...

here is OZ, the price difference is huge, Tamron is $850 AUD and Canon is $1,200 AUD - with the price difference, you can get yourself a Lensbaby composer and let your imagination runs wild

I have the 17-50 non-VC, and the sharpness is amazing...

I could personally never justify the price difference - like djvkool said here in the Aus the price difference is huge, even more so if you're considering the non-VC version (especially on the 2nd hand market!).

If the AF is like other similar Tamrons then it's most likely still quite fast, just louder and without full-time MF.

Consider what else you can buy for that price difference.

What about cheaper and more versatile 17-70 sigma?

onurrus wrote in post #8825765
What about cheaper and more versatile 17-70 sigma?

It's not full-time F2.8 and it's Sigma ... say what you want my buddy here at work just bought one and had to send it back because of front focus problems. Not a little, 2 full centimeters.
Cane back from Sigma with 1,5cm front focus ... tested on 3 different bodies, including my own.

PS: for the europeans ... the tamron 17-50 VC costs about 600€ now. It's on back order everywhere i've checked.
The Canon is 800€.