Toronto Photography Meetup Group

Hello,
What do you all think about these 2 lens, Canon 17-55mm vs Tamron 17-50mm VC (or Tamron 17-50 mm non VC). It looks like all 3 lens has its pros and cons too from reading the review. Which one is a better one (especially in term of getting the better $ from it )
Thanks!

Canon. Won't regret it. End of story.

Tamron non-vc : Very cheap for what it can do. Not as sharp as the canon in corners, but comparable in the centre. Not as well built as the canon, but still solid. AF is decently fast but extremely noisy, occasionally hunts in the dark (I have to use MF in dark areas most of the time)

vc: reviews say image quality it is a little worse than the non-vc counter part. (not really sure on that)

Canon - Sharper than tamrons on f/2.8 & in the corners, Quick & silent AF, IS, better build quality. Basically, good at everything except for the price tag and weight.

It really depends on how deep your pocket is and how tolerable are you on the AF noise on the Tamron. I personally don't think you will see THAT much of a difference in image quality between the lens...unless you pixel peep.

If you think all the pros of the canon has over the tamron is worth 3x the price, go for it. If you are poor (like me ), go for the Tamron.

If you can spend the money on Canon, do it and forget you ever had this question. Just make sure you get a working copy if you buy used (there is a concern about IS going bonkers)

yes, and not to mention the over-hyped 'dust-sucking' capability of the Canon. Solved with filters, and in any case, that little bit of dust is not going to affect the IQ significantly.

Tamron is pretty damn good, but everything i've read says the Canon is better all around. It's the price and weight factor that will determine which one is best for you.

Canon for sure.
I used it for weddings until my 5D came, i think some people call it the little 'L' killer. It's expensive but worth it if you have no plan to move to FF anytime soon.

I still use it on the 30D if I really don't want to carry the 5D.

I'd vote for Canon as well, even though the build quality isn't anywhere close to the L price tag. The IS broke on mine, but that's after 2.5 years of heavy duty use.

Filters have nothing to do with dust getting in, it's the lens zoom assembly that sucks dust in as you zoom in and out. Even though mine was pretty dusty, i never once seen it come up on any images.

Overall, a fast, amazingly sharp and contrasty lens. Just wish it had better build quality.

FYI, a friend of mine got the IS motor fixed and still uses it just fine for more than a year now.

If you don't find yourself shooting on the wider side very often, or have a lens for the wider side already you may want to consider the 24-70L "Brick" - at least that's what I'm thinking through now... Yes it is more but it's also future-proof with weather sealing and has all that other L goodness - imaginary or not. If the rumours of the IS version are true more of these could be on the used market soon and that will push the price down at least a little but probably not much.

The Sigma is apparently worth considering as well - the HSM version of course.

Alternatively, the 17-40mm F4L could be worth checking out, weather proof, great image, around $600-650 used - it's an L

It is indeed a good lens but on a crop I couldn't get comfortable with the range - mine is a Sigma equivalent that does 2.8-4. It just seemed this odd space between actually wide and had no real reach.

Thanks for all the feedback! I will check it out in person at the store.

I actually find it great for landscape and street (the latter would benefit from 2.8 for me, but that's another story)

I have not used the Tamron, but I'll echo the others in saying that the Canon 17-55mm was an excellent lens on my 40D. Optically, it is close to 'L' territory, with the f/2.8 max aperture and IS. Build quality, unfortunately, would never be mistaken for an 'L' lens. The IS mechanism on mine conked out as well, so I had to pay to get it fixed out of warranty with Canon. Many folks have reported IS failure with that lens, and that is the biggest caveat. When the lens works, it's beautiful. When it doesn't, the IS motor will actually shake the lens instead of stabilizing it, and can cause ERR99's on the camera.

Scroll down to the data table... the Canon 17-55 has the second-highest failure rate in that rental company's equipment pool, because of IS failure, AF problems, and ERR99.

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2009.11 ... ir-data-35

you can't beat the tamron non-vc with stick considering what you get and and it's much lower price. get the tamron and call it a day. =)

My old 17-55's IS broke and needed replacing, too. Like others said, image quality is excellent. I've known others that have zoom creep problem (when pointing the lens down), too.

Yeah... this thread has made me pretty much discount the 17-55 IS completely. It'll be the Brick or maybe the Sigma HSM for me when the day comes I can afford either lens.

So, out of all that has been suggested, I'd choose the Tamron non-vc
Too bad I got used to the USM so much

I owned the Tamron 17-50 non VC which was a very good lens and the Canon 17-55. Personally I would spurge and get the Canon. Althought it is more expensive, I found the quality to be excellent + the IS was quite helpful at times.

The good thing about the 17-55 is that this lens is a popular Canon lens. You will not have any trouble selling it (or when upgrading to FF) - it holds it's value!

I had mine for a year and a half - there were complaints about being a dust magnet and or IS issues (I forget the percentage from Lens Rentals repair statistics) but owners of this lens who did not use a front element filter were prone to suck in more dust. I think over the year+ that I've owned it, I only saw a couple dust specs which is quite normal for non sealed lenses. When I had a crop body, the 17-55 was pretty much glued on the body. But try it first at a retail store

This forum is new to me, glad I found it, as people seem to be quite friendly around here.

So Sues, I'm curious which one did you decide on?

I havn't get it yet, but I am leaning on Canon 17-55mm now

I'm having a rethink that the Tamron might be a good stop gap until I can afford the 24-70L. I know the Canon 17-55 is a great lens but if I spent that much what I'd really want would be the 24-70L. But for less than $500 the Tamron would fill the role of a general zoom rather well.

Brian, what did they charge you to repair the IS? Did you take it to Sun Camera?
I own this lens and love it - no problems, no dust - it is my workhorse!

For crop body the 17-55 IS is king
Tamron non VC scares the rats away with the slow and noisy AF.

Selling the canon 17-55 later for a 24-70 or 24-105 is also similar in cost (if you want to go FF)

But thats just my biased opinion heh and I admit I am an Lcoholic so the 17-55 IS non L has a special place with me

I tend to shoot long rather than wide and I have a Tokina 11-16 for wide when I need it. The 24-70L may not go as wide on a crop as the 17-55 but it works with both formats, something the EF-S can't say. The Tamron also won't work with FF, if I ever bother, but it's less than half the cost of the 17-55. The durability issues with the 17-55, listed here and easy to find just about everywhere else, are just not acceptable to me for me for a lens that expensive. Factor in the lack of it working with FF, again, if I ever bother, and its appeal is further limited. Too expensive, too delicate and not a long term kit investment if I upgrade - for me.

IIRC, it was $150 to get it fixed with Canon. They were able to repair it on the first try (after two weeks), so I did not have to send it to Sun Camera.

I can vouch for the Canon 17-55. A stellar lens for sure. Worth every cent I paid for it. Cheers.

Hello all,
Just a quick update, I picked up the Canon 17-55mm and loving it sharpness!! Thanks for all advice!
I have a question though, I am experiencing some magenta problem when I am in a tungsten room with this lens in 1 occasion and 1 other occasion with the 50mm 1.4 lens too, is this a common problem with Canon 50d. I have update the firmware to 1.0.7 "Corrects a phenomenon where captured images may tend to appear somewhat magenta depending on the shooting scene."

when shooting in raw you can adjust the balance to suit your needs without quality loss