Whats the best 17-50 range f2.8 lens for Canon

T

tris101

Suspended / Banned
Messages
670
Name
Tristian
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys and girls,

I know most love the tamron 17-50 none vc as its great vaule and IQ is very good.

I have read some reviews and lab data which show the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS is sharper across the range, built better and faster to focus than both the Tamron and the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS.

Has anyone used all 3 lens? Anyone want to share your thoughts? What one of the 3 gives the best IQ?
 
The canon 17-55 2.8 is very good, tamron is good for the asking money and a good light weight alternative to the canon, I would rate the Canon better in terms of IQ. No experience with the sigma.
 
wow that tamron is cheap, I'm considering those above also, or maybe the canon 17-40 f4. Gonna keep an eye on this thread to see what you go for.
 
halshaater said:
wow that tamron is cheap, I'm considering those above also, or maybe the canon 17-40 f4. Gonna keep an eye on this thread to see what you go for.
Click to expand...

The 17-40 is more suited for full frames so I wouldn't recommend one for your 60d anyway.
 
Can only compare the Canon 17-55 to the Sigma 18-50 and in my opinion the former is the better lens, personally think the new Sigma would have to be very good to beat the Canon overall
 
Ive had the canon 17-55 2.8 IS very good lens, but i sold it and brought a tamron 17-50 2.8 non vc and never looked back, its a superb lens and produces awesome images ,heres a few from the weekend using the tammy :thumbs:
1
5650755660_e50b427e5f_z.jpg

2
5650738686_8e456e668c_z.jpg


Andy
 
I debated this myself recently.

In the end I went for the Canon 17-55 2.8, I knew if I went for a third party I'd always be pining for the Canon model, buy once buy right.
 
Whenever I see pics from this lens it just makes me want one badly!

Is the Tamron better than the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 or about the same? Also, wheres the cheapest official option to buy from?
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again; the Canon 17-55 f2.8 is probably the best EF-S lens they have ever produced. It's optics are excellent, and the build quality is better than that of it's competitors. If it had weather sealing it would perfect. It's an L lens in all but name....

Steve
 
Jelster said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again; the Canon 17-55 f2.8 is probably the best EF-S lens they have ever produced. It's optics are excellent, and the build quality is better than that of it's competitors. If it had weather sealing it would perfect. It's an L lens in all but name....

Steve
Click to expand...

Optically superb, and priced right up there with L lenses, but falls a long way short in build quality compared with them.
 
I have the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC MACRO, and for the price it is amazing value for money. It produces excellent colour and sharpness, but if money was no object I would buy the Canon 17-55mm IS.

But, and this is a big but, if I was spending upwards of £700 on an EF-S lens I would always think that £700 would be better off going towards a full-frame fund. £700 is a big chunk towards a 5Dmk2 at the end of the day, and people can talk about how close the IQ from a 17-55mm IS is from an 'L' lens, but no crop would beat the IQ from a 5D2 and 24-70mm F2.8L
 
The thing is, not everyone wants to go full frame.
And £700 isn't really a significant chunk of a 5D II + 24-70 F2.8

Back to the original discussion - specifically a question for folk with the Tamron 17-50 lenses... Does the focussing ring on the outside of the lens barrel move then AF is used? Or is AF completely internal?
 
Thankyou, my question is indeed answered.

Only review I found where it is - seems very few people are as bothered by that as I am!
 
I might be new to this, but I'm very happy to have my 17-50 Tammy. Easily my most used lens as it is soo versatile and the PQ is exceptional.
 
Ive got the canon and the 18 - 50 sigma. I'm not sure how the new one can focus quicker than the canon, its almost instant!!
 
I went from the Sigma 17-70mm to the Canon 17-55 IS 2.8, its a pretty big jump in price but the quality is very nice - as others have said it seems close to L quality.

I do perhaps think people get a little hung up on the lenses rather than developing their skills. Easily done and we are probably all guilty of it.

I'll go FF and L glass when I know I can take full advantage of it.
 
Thanks guys.

My concerns are:

Tamron 17-50, build quality, focus speed and accuracy, little noisy, no IS.

Canon 17-55, build quality and dust penetration issues, expensive.

Sigma 17-50 OS, seams to have best of both above but not popular maybe due to IQ and price???
 
Ting is the Tamron is £250 used, the Canon is £500+, big differecne.
 
arad85 said:
Tamron appears better than the Canon wide open at the shorter focal lengths. See: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...LensComp=398&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 and run through the different focal lengths/apertures...
Click to expand...

I don't trust that comparison. The Canon under-performs in TheDigitalPicture test because they shoot a flat target at close distance, which is always risky with wide angles. They admit it is a problem in their explanation section and make specific reference to the Canon 17-55 - here, towards the bottom http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx

Simple answer to the OP's question, the Canon 17-55 2.8 is the best lens in that range, but the Tamron non-VC is also very good for a lot less money.

Edit: don't worry about build quality on the Canon, it's better than any of the others. It only gets mentioned because it often gets compared to L-series lenses. It's fine. On the dust issue, yes it seems more prone than some but is also very easy to clean yourself, takes ten minutes. All you need is confidence and this guide http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/drp although there are a few others around.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Edit: don't worry about build quality on the Canon, it's better than any of the others. It only gets mentioned because it often gets compared to L-series lenses. It's fine. On the dust issue, yes it seems more prone than some but is also very easy to clean yourself, takes ten minutes. All you need is confidence and this guide http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/drp although there are a few others around.
Click to expand...

No, it's not fine. The 17-55mm may compare with L series lenses for IQ/optical quality, and it's priced similarly, but the build quality is consumer level. I wouldn't have an issue with this if it was priced accordingly.
 
Very interesting thread.

I too am looking to get something a little wider for shooting architecture. From what I can see the best bet overall would be to go with the Canon 17-55. Looks like I might just be in the market for one :)

Thanks for the thread all.
 
I have the Tamron and it is very good, am I right in thinking that the sigma does not have image stabilisation.
 
MartynK said:
No, it's not fine. The 17-55mm may compare with L series lenses for IQ/optical quality, and it's priced similarly, but the build quality is consumer level. I wouldn't have an issue with this if it was priced accordingly.
Click to expand...

Can you tell me what's wrong with the build quality ?

I've had a number of L lenses in my time, and I don't see much difference in the build quality of this lens and the 24-105 L, or the 70-200 f4 L. Now if you were comparing it to a 70-200 f2.8 IS I could understand. I've been using one of these for over a year. I bought it 2nd hand, it's over 3 years old, and it get used very frequently (and I use my kit).

In fact, mine doesn't seem to have a dust problem either. Maybe that's because I use it rather than sitting there admiring it, or maybe I'm just lucky. It's been on the 7D when they were dropped from about 3ft onto the grass (on a cold February morning) and neither sustained a mark. And the resale value holds it's price too.

Steve
 
Sigma make a 17-50 with OS (IS) which is the lens I'm trying to compare the others with.

The build of the canon 17-55 is quite plastically, its is heavy I guess this is due to the 19 elements in it compared to 17 in the others. The dust is my biggest concern.
 
MartynK said:
No, it's not fine. The 17-55mm may compare with L series lenses for IQ/optical quality, and it's priced similarly, but the build quality is consumer level. I wouldn't have an issue with this if it was priced accordingly.
Click to expand...

Admitedly it's expensive, but 17-55mm 2.8 costs £750, and equates to a 27-88mm on for full frame. Closest to that spec is the 24-70L 2.8, which is the best part of £1k and doesn't have IS.

Edit: prices here http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/cat5.html
 
Last edited:
The IS and USM of the Canon must make it worth a look.

This lens wasn't available when I was looking for something in this range so I got a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. It doesn't have IS or USM but it's compact, light and sharp.
 
cherokee1111 said:
Did you read the link in post #31?
Click to expand...

Yes thanks it was an interesting read..

I have read a few reviews, most people state is a good lens but it would appear not many people have brought this lens as most favour the Canon or Tamron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top