Canon17-55 2.8 v tamron 17-50

A

AdamGP86

Messages
136
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

I'm currently using the tamron 17-50 2.8 (non vr) on my 650d and have been contemplating pxing it against the canon 17-55 has anyone here made this upgrade? Is it worth the money?

I don't really stick to any particular type of photography as I like to experiment so versatility is what I'm mainly after, I've found the tamron to be good but would IS for video and faster focussing would be very useful for me but is it with my lens + a little over £300

Thanks

Adam
 
If you can afford it go for it the 17-55 is sharper quicker focussing and has is you won't be disappointed!
 
The 17-55 is a great lens and the IS comes in handy.

If budget is a concern, you could look at grey imports or second hand (eBay or resellers with a warranty).
 
LostInSpace said:
The 17-55 is a great lens and the IS comes in handy.

If budget is a concern, you could look at grey imports or second hand (eBay or resellers with a warranty).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the replies,

Budget is a strong consideration, I've been offered £160px for my tamron and £40px for my 18-55 kit lens I never use. So it would cost 300 plus the lenses it would replace.

I can manage those numbers but it would be the most I've ever spent on camera gear apart of my 650d body
 
AdamGP86 said:
I can manage those numbers but it would be the most I've ever spent on camera gear apart of my 650d body
Click to expand...

Ditto - I made a conscious decision to buy second hand from eBay for both my 17-55 and 70-200 2.8 IS. Do plenty of research, generally speaking the ones advertised with lots of pics, detailed descriptions and including all the original packaging should be a good buy, but there is always a small risk(IMHO). This approach did allow me to buy the camera and lens' I wanted within my preset budget as I couldn't afford to buy new UK kit.

A secondary consideration is if you continue to progress your photography, the 17-55 is a lens that will allow you to get the best out of a future body upgrade in a couple of years and should retain a good portion of it's value if you decide to sell, change or upgrade in the future. Don't let that that sway your choice though, buy the best lens for your current needs and enjoy using it.
 
I have both the 17-55mm IS and 17-50mm VC ... to be honest I see very very little difference between them. The Canon IS is quicker to settle than the Tamron VC and it's quieter when focusing thanks to the USM but IQ wise there is not a lot in it (especially considering the prices).

I would be quite happy if I just had the Tamron.
 
I had a quick play in store at lunch today and am thinking i may take the plunge. All of of the decent looking 2nd hand ones online are the same price or higher and this comes with a 6 month warranty from the store.

I was impressed with the speed of the USM focusing jumping from far away to a dark area ( middle of a black camera bag ) almost instantly. If i do upgrade my camera in the future it would probably be to a high end crop such as a 70d so i should see a few years of use out of it.
 
I've owned both the Tamron 17-50 (Non VC) and Canon 17-55 in the past. I bought the Tamron initially as budget wouldn't stretch to the Canon.

IMO, the Tamron is certainly good for the money but the Canon is worth the extra if you can stretch. As Mike.P said not much in it optically (although reputedly the Tamron is subject to a bit of sample variation), but the extra 5mm of reach, USM focus speed, full time manual focus and IS put it ahead.

The 17-55 is one of Canon's best lenses (red band or not) IMO. Easily the finest EF-S lens they make. I loved mine to bits when I had my 40D and would own one still if I had a crop body to mount it on.

They hold their value really well too so if you ever decide to go FF in the future you will be able to sell it on really easily with little loss.
 
I had my Tamron 17-50 non vc for almost 5 years before I replaced it with a Canon 17-55 IS USM. I don't regret it for a minute, the Canon is much quicker to focus and much quieter too. I've found image quality to be about the same, the Tamron is a very good lens but I prefer the Canon.

One good thing about the Tamron is that it is quite a bit smaller and lighter than the Canon.
 
ChrisJ_SLH said:
The 17-55 is one of Canon's best lenses (red band or not) IMO. Easily the finest EF-S lens they make.
Click to expand...

Not disputing that it's one of their best lenses (I used to own one) but the 15-85 gives it a good run for its money as their finest EF-S lens, sacrificing the wide aperture for greater range and better build quality, which is the one let-down with the 17-55 IMO.
 
Well I went and bought it today... Does feel like a nice upgrade, will have to go out and play at the weekend
 
Congrat's Andy :clap:
 
Vertigo1 said:
Not disputing that it's one of their best lenses (I used to own one) but the 15-85 gives it a good run for its money as their finest EF-S lens, sacrificing the wide aperture for greater range and better build quality, which is the one let-down with the 17-55 IMO.
Click to expand...

I've no experience of the 15-85 so can't comment on that but I would agree that the 17-55 build quality isn't 1st class, not bad, but not the best. Optically it is a peach though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top