Canon EF-S 17-55mm VS Sigma 17-50mm VS Tamron 17-50mm?

Dave Luttmann wrote:

Sovern wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

Canon, Tamron, Sigma...in that order. They are actually very close...but the Canon is worth every penny.

I want to point out that if you're a portrait photography none of these zoom lenses would be on my list.

What about those lenses makes you think you cannot obtain an excellent quality portrait? And if you comment on shallow DOF, you can indeed obtain a fairly shallow DOF at f2.8 at 50mm. That said, portrait doesn't equal shallow DOF.

Well even at 50mm the compression is not there and the photos look boring to me for the most part. Around 85-200mm portraits really pop and look 3 dimensional and they give a realistic compression distortion look that is very flattering not to mention you can really blow out at a background with a fast aperture at these longer focal lengths if thats the look that you're going after.

There are times when even wide angle lenses and 50mm is useful for a nice portrait but I find myself liking the look of the longer focal lengths more and more and 50mm looks the same on crop or FF (besides FF giving you more bokeh capability's  and it's not a flattering focal length for a straight on portrait most of the time.

Most of the time I prefer the look of a portrait taken at 85mm up to 300mm.

I just think that the 17-50(55) lenses are boring. I'd prefer to have a fast telephoto prime like the 85 1.8 or 135F2 or even the 200 2.8 or even longer and a wider angle lens for more inrtesting portraits and environmental portraits such as a 35mm on full frame or even 28mm.