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

amosf wrote:

Keith Z Leonard wrote:

Sovern wrote:

Personally I won't compromise on lens brand anymore I already made the mistake once and won't ever do it again. Canon lenses in general are very good lenses so I recommend them over the third party lenses.

Yep, and that's the truth of it, you had a bad experience, and that sucks, but you should realize that many (actually most) other people do not have bad experiences, or base their decisions upon having 1 bad experience. Based upon pro reviews and user reviews statistically the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS is a really good lens and significantly cheaper than the Canon 17-55, which is also a really good lens.

Doesn't mean all of Sigma's lenses are good and doesn't mean all of Canon's lenses are good either (anyone else remember the 18-55 non-IS kit lens?? Terrible!). I've had to send some Canon gear in for calibration too, as have many others, doesn't mean that I'll stay away from Canon gear, it happens, it's a part of life in the mass production age.

I wouldn't part with any of the lenses I have, Tamron, Canon or Sigma. Sure, my 18-200 is not great in the IQ department, but it fills the role it was designed for.

Sovern seems to be mostly dismissing the 17-50 because it wasn't a great portrait prime, and I would tend to agree with that. It is a nice walk around 2.8 zoom though. I would likely have bought a Canon 17-55 if I had the money and I got the Tamron on price, but after having the 17-50 Tamron I wouldn't now go out and get the Canon 17-55 as I can't imagine the improvement would be worth the extra expense since I am already more than happy with what I have.

The thing is, Canon can make some not so great lenses too, as said here, or make lenses that have necessary compromises that no everyone will be happy with. For example I am pretty sure Sovern would not like any brand of 18-200/250/270. But people have different needs and expectations.

For me the OP choice is easy. These are all good lenses. Buy the one you can afford.

I'd agree that the 17-50 makes a great indoor lens. That part I definitely agree with as the kit lens is too slow for indoor use sometimes even though I've had success with that at indoor venues also.

I find the 17-50 to be too short outside of indoor use actually but then again I shoot portraiture like you mentioned.