Canon 17-55 v. Tamron 17-50 v. Sigma 18-50

[User_3811325]

<p>The Canon 17-55, Tamron 17-50, and Sigma 18-50 have a similar focal range, and all of them are fast at f2.8.<br>

The Canon is the only one with image stabilization, but at about $1,000 it is also more than 2x the cost of the others (which are each about $450).<br>

Does anyone have any thoughts as to the quality/relative value of these three lenses?</p>

[bob_osullivan]

<p>The Canon will Auto Focus faster and more accurately than the other two. It also has the added benefits of talking to the canon bodies and flash via ETTL if you're into that. I"m not sure if the 3rd party lenses can do that or to what extent they do. There may abe a slight difference in sharpness, contrast and color but the AF is what really stood out for me when I compared them.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>In my experience its the auto focus that was the biggest difference. I have used the Canon and the Tamron. The Canon has full time manual focus plus it will focus more accurately with less noise then the Tamron. However for the money the Tamron 17-50 is probably one of the best zooms you can buy.</p>

[ronhartman]

<p>I recently got the Tamron. Optically, I don't think one is clearly better then the other. The weight difference was the biggest factor to me. The Tamron is half a pound lighter.</p>

<p>There is a new version of the Tamron lens coming out, with image stabilization. Probably will be priced in the $700 area.</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>Optically, I can say the canon and tamron are great. As for everything else, I am on my third defective copy of the Tamron. Two have badly front focused (very sharp when manually focused) and the third has a bad centering error at certain focal lengths. My main knock against the Tamron is the the AF performance is very inconsistent. Even after I more or less calibrated my lenses (20 units adjustment on the 50D) the AF missed focus quite a bit. It's great in good light outdoors, but indoors or under poor lighting even the 18-55 non-IS kit performed better. </p>

[richard_martin10]

<p>I had the Sigma for a short while, CA was the worst I ever had in any lens I ever owned. I've had the Tamron for about 2 years now and its fantastic. I've had no focus issues, its always accurate and sharp, AF speed is OK also. Some people are bothered by the slightly noisy focus motor, not an issue for me. My only complaint is that its not a 17-85!</p>

[15sunrises]

<p>I have the Tamron as well, highly recommend it.</p>

[m._scott_clay1]

<p>IMHO the Canon is worth the extra money if you have the $$ to spare, however, I currently own the Tamron and have been very pleased with it. Mine is sharp, auto-focus works well in good light, but is a little touchy in dim light and the noise it makes doesn't bother me. It's the only non-Canon lens I own.</p>

<p>Best regards.....M. Scott Clay</p>

<p> </p>

[dhhensler]

<p>I'm having this same debate and I've deciced to wait for the new Tamron 17-50 with VC. At 650 from Amazon, I think it's splitting the cost difference between the 500 range and 1,000 for the Canon. Hope the IQ is worth the wait! Cheers, good luck!</p>

[gtx2]

<p>Have used the Tamron for a few years, before I moved to the canon. Canon = great. Tamron = good. Tamron AF = noisy, slow compared to the Canon. Canon is worth the extra spend IMO.</p>

[rogernoel]

<p>I don't know about the Tamron lens, but I have the Canon and it is superb in almost any situation. I just returned from five weeks in Europe and that lens was on my 30D virtually all the time. I have a Sigma 10-20 mm WA and it is the only non Canon lens that I use. I have been reasonably satisfied with it, but often wonder should I have paid the additional for the Canon WA lens. </p>

[richard_martin10]

<p>Check this link for a surprising resolution comparison between the Canon and Tamron......one of the reasons I couldn't justify spending the extra money on the Canon. <br>

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2&LensComp=400&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLI=4&API=1">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2&LensComp=400&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLI=4&API=1</a></p>

[tomsphotography1664882219]

<p>I too am in the same dilema. I need this focal range and aperture for weddings, I am not wealthy so every penny counts (cent for those of you across the water!). I have read and read and read every review going, and having just looked at the above link for a test comparison the Tamron would appear to be streaks ahead on IQ. Is this so and if so is focusing the only issue with the Tamron. How bad is the focusing....what % of shots am I likely to loose due to poor focus?</p>