Canon 17-55 f/2.8 or Canon 24-70 L f/2.8 to replace Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

Marcos Villaroman wrote:

dougeryb wrote:

The Tamron is an excellent lens.  The VC even makes it more compelling compared to the Canon 24-70IS ii.

I agree; the Tamron is an excellent lens and I love the VC.

I went with the 24-70/2.8L mk II because I happen to have the extra $1000 at the time and the local camera store had just one copy left in inventory...  It was an impulse buy.  The mk II performed so well, I don't regret the purchase.  Also it was around the time that the story about inner elements coming loose with early production runs of the Tamron was reported on lensrental.com.  Of course, no one has heard any complaints about that issue since then so I'm sure Tamron took care of that manufacturing issue.

I think buying the Tamron VC and then reaching a bit for a 6D to go with it makes a lot more sense than buying a 24-70/2.8L II.

The only thing I don't know personally about the Tamron is how good is its weather seals.  I got caught in heavy rain with the 24-70 mk I; the mk I held up really well --- my 5D3 didn't and had to be sent to Canon to get the main circuit board replaced.  I now have various rain covers in all of my camera bags and will not submit any of my gear to that kind of rain in the future, but, I do wonder how well the Tamron would hold up.

I took it out half a dozen times during  some light sprinkles with no problems.  I was more  concerned about water on the 7d pop up flash than the lens.  I've taken it to beaches and dusty trail bike races as well and haven't had any dust in the assembly yet. Weather sealing is holding up so far but only time will tell.