Canon 17-55/2.8 vs. Tamron 17-50/2.8

[Benjamin]

Hi guys,


I'm now looking for an one lens solution for my 50D. My 24-70/2.8L does the job perfect but the combo is somehow too heavy and large for me when I'm travelling and photography is not my major activity.


I feel hard to let go with a f/2.8 aperture, and I have just killed the prime lens solution as I think that I'll lose photo opportunities if only one prime is avaliable to me. So now I'm looking at both Canon 17-55 and Tamron 17-50. I tried on both and they all feel good to me. The Tamron is actually very, very fast in AF and images are as good as I would easily accept. The Canon does do a little better job, as having an AF window and focuses quietly. The IS is useful but not absolutely necessary at this focal length. At this moment it's hard for me to justify the extra cost of the Canon.


Is there any good reason that I should consider the Canon 17-55 lens? I failed to see how Canon would sell the 17-55 at almost 24-70L's price. The Tamron certainly does a great job and is in no way worse optically.


Flame me if you have a good reason.


Ben

[Jarhead5811]

I'm a very happy owner of a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx]<span style="color: #003399;). I can't compare it to the Canon (I've never even seen one) but can't see spending the difference for IS. Now I'd love to get a Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 L IS USM, when they get around to making one, eventually,but I can't see spending that much on aAPS-C only lens. I plan to eventually get a full frame but...you know $$$$$$


Also, I have a Canon Speedlite Transmitter ST-E2 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Speedlite-Transmitter-ST-E2-Review.aspx]<span style="color: #003399;)that I keep on the camera most of the time, even when I'm not usingmy flashes. It drastically improves focus times.

[markcoons]

Well I have owned both and still own the Canon EF-S 17-55. So that should tell you what I thought of the Tamron.


For me the Tamron was too slow to focus in low light and was a triffle noisy while doing so. For what I wanted the lens for this was a bad combination. In daylight it will focus just fine, but in low light I was missing shots as it would 'hunt' too long. When photograping an indoor performing arts event I would get annoyed looks from nearby patrons because of the noise.


So I sold the Tamron and got the Canon. It works great and I expect to get years of enjoyment out of it.





Hope this helps.

[jusap]

I prefer the 17-55 f/2.8 ISU than the Tamron. Yes the Tamron produces high IQ pictures but for me the IS is critical. Though most of the time it's turned off when I bring my camera outside but when I'm inside especially on low light, the IS can be the factor you'll need to make sure you don't get blurry images.


It's better to have a feature that you can use when a situation presents itself rather than not having anything at all.

[Jorundr-Jorgensen]

I've owned the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 for few months now and I've got little to complain.


The picture are damn sharp and at it's 17' it's pretty wide. The only minus (if you really can call it that) is that, as noted above already, that the AV is quite noisy, but I think it add's character. ;)


And, of course, it is a bargain!





Good luck! [Y]

[Chuck Lee]

Benjamin,


Sounds like you've made up your mind. I have the Tammy and on APS-C it's fabulous. My L glass hunts in low light too. At 1/2 the price of the Canon and a 6 year warranty it's definitelya huge value. If you can buy it at a local shop I suggest you test thier copy before taking it home. I tested two at my local camera store. The first was realy soft. The second was the keeper. It's also 1/2 the weight of the EF-S 17-55 IS.


My2Abes,


Chuck

[Benjamin]

Thanks all for your replies!


I'm pretty sure now that I'll get the Tamron. I really don't think the IS is critical for this focal length as I have excessive experience using my 24-70L in low light and it works just fine. 1/2 of the price, size and weight of the Canon 17-55/2.8 IS is a huge plus too.


Is the Canon a good lens and somewhat better than the Tamron overall? Sure. But my problem is that it's so hard for me to justfy the extra cost - the Canon simply is too much for what it is.


I'll get the Tamron home quick before my travel starts. I'll compare between at least 2 or 3 copies and pick one that I think is the sharpest.


Ben

[Benjamin]

Let me put it this way.


Tamron = $450


What's offered by Canon on top of the Tamron:


IS + $100


Focus window and USM + $100


Weight and size - $50


Separately sold hood - $55


So 450 + 100 + 100 - 50 - 55 = $545


$545 is how much I would like to pay for the Canon. But the Canon = $960...

[ShutterbugJohan]

My 24-70/2.8L does the job perfect but the combo is somehow too heavy and large for me when I'm travelling


Based on this, I would definitely recommend the Tamron. Although the 17-55/2.8 IS is not as heavy as the 24-70/2.8L, it is certainly heavier than the Tamron 17-50/2.8