upgrading: lens or body? 17-55 f2.8'ish

[sweijenberg]

SHORT STORY

What are the general thoughts on the comparison of:

Sigma 18-50 f/2.8
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS

And between that and a body upgrade (350d --> 30d / 40d), what would you prefer? (complete current kit below, for comparison)

Thanks!
------------------
LONG STORY

Hi!

I'd love some thoughts on the following situation. A 9 week trip to Aspen, Colorado, sparked the thought that it might be nice to upgrade my kit I've started digital slr last year, and I now own the following (mostly second hand):

Canon 350d
18-55mm f3.5-5.6
55-200mm f4.5-5.6
50mm f1.8

Nowadays the 50mm is on the camera most of the time, I just adore the large aperture for bokeh. The kit lens didn't get much outing at all, but I got some satisfying shots with the 55-200, though recently it hasn't been on much either.

So, now I have some cash (around 800 EURO), and I'm hesitating:

better body?
better lens?

To me, it seems that I have a couple of options. My main interest is landscape/portraits/cityscapes/. Getting a good walkaround lens with high aperture seems a bright idea to me. First thought I had was to get something out of this trio:

Sigma 18-50 f/2.8
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS
...oh and also Canon 17-40 f/4L??

Better lens, I expect the benefits of high aperture, better resolution (more sharpness, right?) and less fringing/colourcast/whatever it's called --> better colours? Is that reasonable?

Then I remembered that I could also go for another body and keep the glass setup the same. Something along the lines of a 40d, second hand, maybe? What would be important for me with a different body, is: better high-iso performance, more accurate autofocus (esp with the 50 f/1.8, is this a reasonable expectation?), higher dynamic range (?). I do love that the 350d is so small though, I'm traveling a lot, the smaller the better for me, so in that aspect I'm quite happy with the body.

Again, some opinions/facts about the validity of my thoughts would be very welcome, and additional suggestions appreciated as well. A polarizer filter is maybe in order, the sky is blazing in Colorado! Or? Even though I've done quite a bit of research, I'm still not quite sure what would be wisdom at this point!

Thanks! (and thanks for keeping up and reading it all)

 

[SimonTALM]

Lens every time, as for which one I can't really provide any objective advice as I'm not a Canon user but I always think that Canon (or Nikon) lenses always beat the Sigma, Tamron etc. so I would definitely go for the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS.

 

[sweijenberg]

thanks!

any other thoughts?

 

[swag72]

Canon 17-55 2.8 IS is an absolute corker and I would recommend it to anyone. I think if you would get the use out of it, then go for the lens. You say that you are happy with your camera, so why bother changing that?

Lens all the way for me.

 

[Euan]

The 17-55 is a cracking lens but it comes at a price! Ive just bought a Tamron 17-50, 28-75 and a Sigma 18-50 EX for less than the 17-55 advertised in the F/S section. Id love the 17-55 and no doubt i'll end up getting one but i love the Tamron 17-50 at the moment.

 

[itsdavedotnet]

Lots of reviews place the tamron 17-50 VERY highly, directly comparing (often favourably) it to the canon and nikon equivalents, especially bearing in mind that it is in a different league price wise, but the same league of image quality. the sigma also, but not quite as highly as the tamron.

fwiw, I love my nikon fit tamron, cracking lens, and the extra money is a lot of cash for better build quality and _very_ marginally, if any, better IQ, for the canon. On the other hand, there is a canon 17-55 in FS for 550... the tamrons are going for 250ish iirc... your call.