Canon EF-S 17-55 first choice, which is second choice?

<p>I am re-thinking which lens I'm going to upgrade to.</p>

<p>I could afford the Canon 17-55 but I can't justify the cost as I'm not a photographer, I just take pictures as a hobby and as a mom. The size of this lens also makes me a little nervous. I was thinking of going for the Tamron 17-50 (non-VC) because then I could buy an external flash as well, maybe even an 85 1.8. (All I own now is the 50 1.8 and the non-IS 18-55). I'm a little nervous straying away from Canon though, so my question is, do I have any more affordable Canon options (other than the $1100 17-55) for a general purpose lens on a crop frame (xTI)? Or do I just go for the Tamron 17-50 (would love to hear from owners of this lens!).</p>

<p>Thank you!</p>

<p>Just get the Tamron, you can use it instead of that el cheapo plastic toy when it stops working too.<br>

The Tamron is not quite as sharp as the Canon 50mm 1.8, but it's pretty close. I've been using my Tamron 17-50mm for a couple of years now, it has superceeded my 50mm 1.8 which seems to have developed a focussing fault after a similar period of use. Contrast and colours are equal or better than the Canon 50mm 1.8 11. Both lenses are bargains, Tamron seems to last longer.<br>

Neill</p>

<p>Another option: Sigma 18-50/2.8, TAMRON 17-50/2.8 and TOKINA 16-5/2.8. I Am thinking of getting tokina 16-50/2.8<br>

Ivo</p>

<p>In that focal length the Tamron 17-50 2.8 is probably the best alternative. If you don't need the fixed 2.8 aperture, the options increase. The Sigma 17-70 and Canon's 17-85 IS or newer 15-85 IS all become options. The latter two options then get you into the 85 range too. Add the external flash and you should be able to offset the loss of the 2.8 aperture where light is concerned, even though that won't give you the reduced depth of field of the 2.8 aperture. And, in low light conditions the 2.8 is not that fast a lens either. In a dimly lit room an f/ 5.6 lens with an external flash may very well be better than an f/ 2.8 without the flash.<br>

That said, I love my 85 1.8 and 430 EX flash.<br>

DS Meador</p>

<p>Try the Canon 17-40L lens. You still get wide angle coverage and it's an excellent quality lens. Also if you ever get a full frame body it still works. About $500 less than the 17-55. You're smart in wanting to stick with Canon lenses - they have no compatibility problems and I've never had a lens issue (all my lenses are Canon).</p>

<p>The Canon 15-85 is cheaper, covers a great range, and has great image quality and IS. The only downside is that it's a little slow (f/3.5-5.6).</p>

<p>If you can swing a Tamron 17-50/2.8 -- highly regarded by many -- along with a 85/1.8 and a 430EX flash (used or not), you will have a superb kit with considerable creative potential. Even the newer 18-55 with IS is quite an upgrade, it seems, but f/2.8 on your everyday zoom will be handy.</p>

<p>Another vote for 15-85. Excellently made, takes amazing pictures.</p>

<p>

<p>

<p dir="ltr">I tried two copies of the Tamron 17-50 and found them very good. That said, I'd never tempt to replace my 17-55 with anything. Fast aperture, ring USM and IS mean a lot to me. And BTW, I'm an amateur photographer as well.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p></p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

</p>

<p>I have the Tamron 17-50/2.8 w/o VC. It's an impressive lens. Maybe the Canon 17-55 is better, I don't know but still I can't justify the cost. You can look here http://picasaweb.google.com/vladimir.wegner/20100109 All the pictures are with the Tamron on 20D.</p>

<p>I like the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS. It is very affordable for a good used one; I've seen them go for less than $300 lately on ebay. It has a nice range and IS, but it is quite a bit slower than the 17-55mm. If you're looking for fast shutter speed in low light, then the 17-55mm is the way to go, otherwise the 17-85mm should do fine. I'd also look at the 70-200mm f/4L as a telephoto lens. I like this lens more than the 70-300mm IS for many reasons, but the main one being the fast auto focus speed. Most shots I take in this range are action shots (sports/wildlife) and a fast AF is the difference between the perfect shot and not getting a shot at all. This would be a great lens to take pictures of your kids playing outside.</p>

<p>My vote is for the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 AF SP XR Di II LD IF. I bought this lens used about a year ago. It's the only third party lens that I have and it's almost as sharp as some of my Canon "L's."</p>

<p>I've never been a fan of the third party lenses, and probably will never buy another now that I seem to have about all the focal lengths I need covered for both the crop sensors and film.<br>

It does seem that I read more "compatability" issues with the Sigma's & Tokina's. But like I said earlier . . . "this is probably the only third party lens I will ever own!"<br>

I do wish that I had the "VC" or image stabilization model though. IS can be handy for any and all hand held shots at some point or another!</p>

 

<p>I was on the same situation as you a couple of months ago.I was looking for walk-around lens. Never had a non-Canon lens before. My first choice was the Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 but was the cost was a big factor. I finally went for Tamron 17-50 with VC. It's now my favorite walk-around lens and is mounted on my camera 90% of the time. The extra money allowed me to buy the Canon S90, and which by far, is my favorite point and shoot cam an is with me everyday (in my pocket or in my car).<br>

By the way, there's a $70 rebate for the Tamron lens right now , so it's the best time to buy.</p>

<p>All of the above suggestions are good. But, before doing any of that, I suggest you spend $139 and get the IS version of the lens you already have and you may find that it suits your needs perfectly. B&H sells said 18-55 IS version in a white box for $139. "White box" does not mean "used" or "gray market"; it simply means they pulled it out of a kit. The same warranty applies, I believe. You may find that it is all you really need. And if you don't like it, there is a good return policy which I believe is without any restocking fee. If you go beyond the time period, you could easily sell it on craigslist and get at least $100 back and maybe more.<br>

FWIW, I got good results from the non-IS version but the IS version gets excellent reviews all around.<br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/585950-USA/Canon_2042B002WB_EF_S_18_55mm_f_3_5_5_6_IS.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/585950-USA/Canon_2042B002WB_EF_S_18_55mm_f_3_5_5_6_IS.html</a></p>

<p>did you change your mind about getting the primes and IS Kit lens?</p>

<p>I'm in the same camp with Vladimir. Others may be better but I used the extra money elsewhere. I use mine on a 40D, it takes great photos of my grandkids as well as the occasional landscape.</p>

<p>Kate,</p>

<p>In my opinion the Canon 15-85 would be a very good general purpose lens for your rebel. It has a 4 Stop IS, FTM override and a great range. If you need a faster lens in future, I would recommend complementing it with a fast prime such as a Sigma 30 f/1.4 or Canon 50mm (1.8 or 1.4) depending on the focal length you need and how much you're willing to spend.<br>

Also, the 15-85 has a $100 instant rebate right now, so that might be something you want consider as well :)</p>

<p>All the best.<br>

-Rohin</p>

<p>Thanks everyone.<br>

I should have mentioned in OP that lowlight capabilities are important, that's why I've been looking at the 2.8 and ruled out the 15-85 and 17-85.<br>

I'm leaning towards giving the Tamron a shot. That way I could grab a flash and 85 1.8 with it. If I don't love the Tamron, maybe I'll have to splurge and hold off on the others. The zoom would be on my camera most of the time so I want it to take pictures that look close to the ones I get with primes!<br>

Tommy,<br />Yes, I think I did change my mind. LOVE the 85 1.8 but the 28 1.8 just didn't do it for me. I just wasn't happy with it after testing it out for myself. I think I've just decided to go for a really good zoom and then supplement with my 50 1.8 and (maybe) the 85 1.8 as needed.</p>

<p>Sorry it did not work out for you, maybe I am the only person that likes that lens. FWIW I also liked the Tamron 17-50. :-}</p>

<p>I use the Canon 17-55mm 2.8 lens and I wouldn't hesitate to get and use the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 non VC instead. I have tried it out several times and found it to have outstanding image quality. I was going to get one as a back up for my 17-55mm but I have gone full frame and have somewhat different lens priorities. I have still kept the 17-55mm and the 10-22mm to use with my newest T2i because they are both so good. I may still get the Tamron 17-50mm to use on the T2i on the street because of the small size and light weight with excellent image quality. There seems to be a rebate going right now. Good luck!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Canon 15-85 is cheaper, covers a great range, and has great image quality and IS. The only downside is that it's a little slow (f/3.5-5.6)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Says it all. You could also find its predecessor, the EF-S 17-85mm IS lens, which has a couple more warts, all easily worked out when they show in an image. These are the EF-S equivalent of the legendary EF 24-105mm IS L lens (which, by the way shares the same inescapable 'features' for this class of lenses).<br /> I buy lots of old lenses, but for new AF lenses for a APS-C camera longer than 30mm, I will never get another one without image stabilization of some kind. (this sentence somehow a little awkward seems, but I cannot it quite out-figure.)<br>

With modern ISOs the 'slowness' of them is not practically a problem.</p>

<p>It depends of what kind of shootings that you will do. If you shoot quite a bit of moving subjects in low lights, I would go with the Canon lens due to the AF capability, coupled with USM and IS.</p>

<p>One more vote for the 15-85 from one who has the 17-55 as well as this 15-85 for about 6 months now. I hardly use the 17-55 anymore. Yes it's faster, that's about the only advantage it has.<br />The 15-85 gives you the bonus of going extra wide, even better IS, has great optical quality (some vignetting, easy to get around, only happens occasionally), and the 85 on the long end is perfect for portraits even though its at F5.6. In combination with a 70-200 F4 IS and maybe one or two special purpose lenses (85mm for portraits?), you have everything you want. The price is not cheap but good for what you get.</p>

<p>I have a 17-85. Great zoom range but unacceptable distortion at the wide side. Chromatic aberration is shocking but luckily it stopped working due to lens electrical contacts not communicating with the camera body. The camera displays a message "clean the contacts" but that helps for about 3 shots if at all. Canon quality? Well... perhaps if you cough up thousands of dollars for an "L" lens. 15-85 any better? I have not had my hands on one but I doubt it. When faced with a dead lens weeks before going on holiday, I bought a Pentax - the camera and lens was cheaper than replacing the Canon lens and it is a weather sealed K200 which helped in rainy NZ. http://www.juliusbergh.com/nz09/</p>

<p>Good for you Julius. It sounds like you and the Pentax were meant for each other.</p>

<p>Most people have had better luck and find that the problems you mention are rarely visible in real shooting--and when they are, can be fixed easily in post.</p>