Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS vs Tamron 17-50 2.8 (no VC)

[Solarian]

Currently in my bag I have the following:
Canon 40D
Tamron 28-75 2.8
Canon 50mm 1.8 II
Sigma 30mm 1.4
Canon 75-300 4-5.6 III USM
B+W 67mm C-PL for the Tamron
Hoya 62mm S-HMC C-PL for the Sigma

I'm finding that I really need more width. I normally have the 28-75 mounted, and while I'm really happy with the quality of the lens, the lack of width is killing me. There are so many situations that I just can't walk back far enough to get everything I want in my frame.

I've read up on these two lenses, and they're my main competitors. The Tamron doesn't have IS, is not as sharp in the corners, and it's $800 cheaper than the Canon. I realize there is a Tamron with IS, but reviewers say it is nowhere as good as the older non-IS lens. I think if I do get this lens, I'll keep my 28-75 as well, and have a pair of Tamron zooms. They both use a 67mm filter size, and I have a B+W C-PL that I shelled out good money for in that size.

Now the Canon on the other hand, has IS, and everyone that has ever reviewed it describes it as fantastic. Many say it's better than the 24-70 2.8L (image quality is equal, with the added bonus of IS). If I were to pull the trigger on this lens, I would likely sell my 28-75 and the B+W C-PL to offset the cost.

The prices of these two lenses are $400 for the Tamron, $1200 for the Canon.

PS. I'm not interested in going full frame any time soon (3+ years), as I don't do this for a living, and consider it to be a massive waste of money as an amateur. This is why I'm looking at two EF-S lenses.

[ddr]

i sold 3 lenses (tamron 17-50, 50 1.8, 55-250) + cash to get a used 17-55. don't miss any of them at all =)

[Cardiiiii]

Yeah, I have read it's one of the best non L lens available for Canon. I think it's about $1050 on Amazon brand new, and in the $800-900 used on Fred Miranda. If you can afford it, I think you should definitely get it.

[andrewdt]

I bought the Canon 17-55 slightly used for the equivalent of US$1000 about 6 months ago. I do not have a single regret at all - I love this lens! 17-55 filter size is 77mm. (I also picked up a steal second hand 70-200 2.8 IS USM, so I got lucky with them being the same diameter - my CPL and UV fits both so a saving there for me).

So to answer your question, yes - if I were in your shoes I would get rid of the Tamron and CPL. However, I would still keep the 50mm 1.8 (as I have done) as I find there are times when I prefer having a cheap lens on my 50D like low light on the beach or in dusty conditions etc... and of course it is much lighter (the 17-55 is quite a heavy lens - I don't know how it compares to your Tamron size & weight wise).

[Solarian]

Hmm, so it's THAT good? Okay, not the answer my wallet was hoping for, but a good answer nonetheless

[OsmosisStudios]

I'd be tempted to skip the 17-55 and go for something wider: Canon's 10-20 is supposed to be very very nice.

[ddr]

as is the tokina 11-16

[Solarian]

Hmm, now there's an idea... I'd never even considered going wider. I guess I have a lot more thinking to do than I originally thought.

[ddr]

the thing to consider is how much $ you have and which lenses you're giving up. I wouldn't trade the 17-55, a walkaround, for an ultrawide. It'd be nice to own both though.

[Solarian]

Well, in terms of money, I just buy when I have enough of it, so it's not that much of an issue. I could get the Tamron I mentioned now, but the Canon will have to wait at least 2 more months.
I see your point on picking and choosing though. I'm trying to think about each of the lenses and my usage. I think I'd really enjoy the 10-20 for a lot of the travel photography I'm going to do. I'll be touring Japan, China and maybe Thailand. I think it'd give me a pretty interesting perspective when doing a bunch of architectural/historical stuff.

Then again, I'm really tempted by a few things on the 17-55 IS. I don't know exactly how the image quality on the 10-20 is (I'm told it's good), but does it come close to the spectacular quality of the 17-55? I also really want the IS. Most of the time, I shoot things, not people, so they tend to be static, and the IS would really come in handy when it starts getting darker outside. Add to the fact that I'd be doing my travelling in winter, with the short days, and I think I can really see myself using the IS. Honestly, the only thing turning me away from this lens is the price. It's an expensive little bugger, and I'd have to wait and save for quite a bit of time to get it.