Canon 17-55 f2.8 or Tamron 17-50 f2.8?
Discussion
As per the title, really, what would you go for?
I got as far as speaking to my local camera shop to buy the Canon 17-55 f2.8 for my new 7D mk2. They can do me a good price on it (£494 inc cashback) but they don't stock them and said they found the demand was higher for the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. A quick Google suggests that's substantially cheaper (the same shop has it at £349). So what does the Canon offer for the extra £150?
ETA And then there's the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 for even less?
Reviews I've seen suggest the Canon is the best optically overall, but not by much and not in all circumstances. The Tamron was good optically but apparently has dreadful auto focus (so probably out for me) but the Sigma seems to be a good all-rounder.
The thought that I could get a Sigma 17-50 and a 50mm prime lens to play around with for less than the Canon 17-55 on its own is pretty tempting...
I got as far as speaking to my local camera shop to buy the Canon 17-55 f2.8 for my new 7D mk2. They can do me a good price on it (£494 inc cashback) but they don't stock them and said they found the demand was higher for the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. A quick Google suggests that's substantially cheaper (the same shop has it at £349). So what does the Canon offer for the extra £150?
ETA And then there's the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 for even less?
Reviews I've seen suggest the Canon is the best optically overall, but not by much and not in all circumstances. The Tamron was good optically but apparently has dreadful auto focus (so probably out for me) but the Sigma seems to be a good all-rounder.
The thought that I could get a Sigma 17-50 and a 50mm prime lens to play around with for less than the Canon 17-55 on its own is pretty tempting...
Edited by Chris71 on Monday 4th January 13:05
I am kinda leaning towards the Sigma.
It's a big price difference, and from the reviews I've read the difference in optical performance is only really noticeable when it's wide open, at which point I might be better off using 'said prime lens anyway?
At the back of my mind there's the thought that the new camera is a big step up from what I'm used to, so I want a lens that will do it justice. The Canon 17-55mm f2.8 does seem to be regarded as sightly better overall, but I don't how much I'd notice it.
It's a big price difference, and from the reviews I've read the difference in optical performance is only really noticeable when it's wide open, at which point I might be better off using 'said prime lens anyway?
At the back of my mind there's the thought that the new camera is a big step up from what I'm used to, so I want a lens that will do it justice. The Canon 17-55mm f2.8 does seem to be regarded as sightly better overall, but I don't how much I'd notice it.
The Canon is EF-S isn't it? So if you plan on going full frame at any point it won't fit. The Tamron and Sigma are both EF.
Not a reason not to buy it, just something to be aware of.
I have the Tamron: It's nice and sharp but doesn't have ultrasonic AF, so it's a touch slow to focus. For landscapes and portraits, this probably isn't an issue. For anything involving moving subjects it will be.
Not a reason not to buy it, just something to be aware of.
I have the Tamron: It's nice and sharp but doesn't have ultrasonic AF, so it's a touch slow to focus. For landscapes and portraits, this probably isn't an issue. For anything involving moving subjects it will be.
I bought the canon, and it delivered.
The Tamron one with image stabalisation is junk. The one without is optically ok but the focus is slow and clunky.
Sigmas OS one is not a bad option but its not one of their new ones you will take a punt on focusing, which is important at 2.8..
The canon has great optics and spot on focusing was my favourite lens on crop. Kicker was having to buy the lens hood separately but that again was worth it (I got the canon).
And anyone who knows me knows I dont mind 3rd party lenses if they are up to it.
The Tamron one with image stabalisation is junk. The one without is optically ok but the focus is slow and clunky.
Sigmas OS one is not a bad option but its not one of their new ones you will take a punt on focusing, which is important at 2.8..
The canon has great optics and spot on focusing was my favourite lens on crop. Kicker was having to buy the lens hood separately but that again was worth it (I got the canon).
And anyone who knows me knows I dont mind 3rd party lenses if they are up to it.
I second what Rob said, the Canon is by far the best overall package, it's just a bit heavy. My first walkaround lens was a 17-85 (on a 350D and then 40D) but when it broke due to the infamous broken aperture cable issue, I replaced it with a 17-55 2.8. Now I shoot with a 7D2 but the 17-55 it still my default walkaround unless I am shooting something specific.
My standard 2-lens travel kit is the 17-55 and 70-300L.
My standard 2-lens travel kit is the 17-55 and 70-300L.
SlidingSideways said:
The Canon is EF-S isn't it? So if you plan on going full frame at any point it won't fit. The Tamron and Sigma are both EF.
Not a reason not to buy it, just something to be aware of.
The Tamron & Sigma are also for crop sensors. They may fit on the mount but they will vignette terribly. Not a reason not to buy it, just something to be aware of.
DibblyDobbler said:
troc said:
the Canon is by far the best overall package
I've nothing against the 17-55 but this is going a bit far - it may be slightly better but it's also a lot more expensive. The Sigma I had was cheap, sharp and focused fine 
DibblyDobbler said:
Over to you OP - what's the decision?!
Not sure!My local shop actually has the Sigma at less than the Tamron and the reviews I've seen online suggest it's the better of the two, so I think the Tamron is out. It comes down to Canon or Sigma.
I'm not a photographer, but I use the camera primarily for work, so it's a taxable expense ... which helps to justify spending the extra on the Canon. Plus, I tend to hang on to my kit for years and I'm not sure I'd ever go full frame, so I'd probably get plenty of value out of it. On the other hand, I'm aware that the Canon would pretty much exhaust my photography budget for the rest of the year, whereas the Sigma would allow for a prime lens or a decent flash unit.
Once the camera arrives I'll make the call. Probably the Canon, I think, but I'm not convinced the premium is justified.
Incidentally, can anyone recommend good mail order used sources? I would contemplate a second hand 17-55 if I could find one at a substantial discount. I've looked on Wex, Harrisons and MPB, plus the local store, but the only one I've seen so far was only around £50 less than new.
Chris71 said:
can anyone recommend good mail order used sources?
I think you've covered the main ones - I usually import (panamoz, digital rev and the like) or else eBay (usually ok if careful) or the Talk Photography classifieds (need to be a member for a while first though).Happy hunting!
I loved my 17-55 f2.8 Canon. It was one of the reasons I never bothered to upgrade the body on the 550D. Optically it's suppose to be almost as good as any of the 'L' lens.
The depth of field you get at 55mm with f2.8 is amazing.
It's razor sharp through out it's focal range, and really does deliver the results regardless of the situation.
On an APS-C body, as a daily walkaround lens you cannot get better than the 17-55, forget the prime, you don't need it with the 17-55, its quick enough already.
My only complaint is it's size and weight....Unfortunately the 17-55 had an argument with the kitchen floor at X-mas and is now dead. Have actually replaced it with the complete opposite - an Olympus Micro 4/3 system with a kit lens. Only got it yesterday, but love been able to actually take the camera with me in the coat pocket rather than having an extra bag
The depth of field you get at 55mm with f2.8 is amazing.
It's razor sharp through out it's focal range, and really does deliver the results regardless of the situation.
On an APS-C body, as a daily walkaround lens you cannot get better than the 17-55, forget the prime, you don't need it with the 17-55, its quick enough already.
My only complaint is it's size and weight....Unfortunately the 17-55 had an argument with the kitchen floor at X-mas and is now dead. Have actually replaced it with the complete opposite - an Olympus Micro 4/3 system with a kit lens. Only got it yesterday, but love been able to actually take the camera with me in the coat pocket rather than having an extra bag
Edited by gangzoom on Friday 8th January 12:39
I had this same decision to make and bought the Tamron (non stabilised, as Rob says the stabilised version is not as good optically)
However this was a few years ago. The Canon was significantly more expensive then, with the prices that you are talking about i would definitely be getting the Canon.
However this was a few years ago. The Canon was significantly more expensive then, with the prices that you are talking about i would definitely be getting the Canon.
Chris71 said:
Jesus, that thing's huge!
Hmm. Size and weight puts me off slightly, but while I do walk round with the camera I only do so when I'm specifically intending to take photos (I wouldn't carry it with me on the off chance while on holiday). Hmm.
Size and weight is the reason I moved away from the APS-C system - A 7D next to a Olympus micro 4/3 system is like comparing a mini to a Range Rover interms of size/weight.Hmm. Size and weight puts me off slightly, but while I do walk round with the camera I only do so when I'm specifically intending to take photos (I wouldn't carry it with me on the off chance while on holiday). Hmm.
BUT since you have already committed to a 7D which is much bigger than my 550D your should get decent glass to match it, and trust me, the 17-55 is the best your can get for walk around. I know reviews say it's a bit 'soft' wide open but judge for your self - Do these images look 'soft'. Also changing lens mid shot/out in the field isn't always easy, which is why also the of 'pros' have two camera bodies. One with body with a prime lens, one with a zoom lens.
Having said that, I'm really loving the much smaller weight and size of the Olympus micro 4/3 camera. Even the sharpness of the tiny lens is impressive / especially for the price (£130) and size!!
Even the AF in exterme darkness is as good as my 550D, and because of the lack of weight, and amazing 5 stop image stablisafion allows for stupid exposure times. I got this shot whilst playing about lastnight waiting to pick up my wife from work...1 second exposure, handheld!!!! I could have never got this shot using the 550D, even with a f 1.8 prime lens.
Edited by gangzoom on Saturday 9th January 05:58
You might find this website useful for size comparisons
http://camerasize.com
Size difference between a compact camera like the Olympus + pancake lens and 7D Mark II + 17-55
To be fair, if you stick an equivalently quick zoom lens on the Olympus the size difference comes down, this is the Olympus + 12-40 f 2.8 vesus Tamron 17-50 f 2.8 on the Canon - Though the 12-40 Olympus lens is weather sealed and essentially a 'L' lens equivalent. But unlike some things in life, I've come to the decisions, for cameras at least size really doesn't matter, if anything the smaller the better
http://camerasize.com
Size difference between a compact camera like the Olympus + pancake lens and 7D Mark II + 17-55
To be fair, if you stick an equivalently quick zoom lens on the Olympus the size difference comes down, this is the Olympus + 12-40 f 2.8 vesus Tamron 17-50 f 2.8 on the Canon - Though the 12-40 Olympus lens is weather sealed and essentially a 'L' lens equivalent. But unlike some things in life, I've come to the decisions, for cameras at least size really doesn't matter, if anything the smaller the better
Still waiting for the camera, but took the plunge and ordered a new Canon 17-55 from Jessops. After the cashback it'll be £454 and the cheapest second hand one I found was £400 in round figures, so didn't really seem worth it.
Haven't bought a lens hood yet. How critical would you say it is to have one? Will any 77mm lens hood fit? Somewhere I've got one bought for my old Canon 55-250mm.
Haven't bought a lens hood yet. How critical would you say it is to have one? Will any 77mm lens hood fit? Somewhere I've got one bought for my old Canon 55-250mm.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff