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

buckeyevet wrote:

I'm a newbie here, so bear with me...

I'm an amateur photographer, but I want to improve the image quality of my photos.  To that end, in February, I upgraded my old digital Rebel XTi to the 60D.  I am still using my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 with the 60D body, and getting decent pictures.  (I also have a basic Canon 75-300, and a Canon 50mm macro lens)

But I'm ready to upgrade my workhorse lens.  I just feel that my pictures aren't as sharp and life-like as they should be--especially anything close up.  The Tamron seems to do well enough with landscapes, but seems to lack on indoor day to day family shots, and close-ups.

I shoot mostly landscapes, kids sports, and many family pictures--posed and candid.  I am starting to learn how to use my 60D to it's fullest by finally getting away from shooting auto, and playing more with f-stops and adjusting for exposure etc.

So, my dilemma is this, do I just replace my Tamron with the equivalent Canon lens?  Or do I really, really upgrade to the 24-70 L lens?

Does an L lens really make a difference with image quality?  Does the Canon 60D do justice to the 24-70 lens? (I'm not sure I understand crop-sensor vs. full frame cameras).

So, I'm hunting for opinions....

I upgraded from the Tamron 17-50 to the Canon 17-55, and it was a big improvement. Particularly, the focusing is just worlds better. The color is a bit better as well, somewhat more neutral compared to the Tamron having a bit more os an amber cast to it. Plus of course IS. The Tamron was plenty sharp though and I got a lot of good pics out of it, just  got tired of the focus hunting.

It is better than the 24-105 I have now (have gone full frame) IMHO.

The 24-70 is great, but it's really heavy, and not a great range for the crop sensor. I would only consider that if you think you will be going full frame in the near future.