Sharper replacement for Tamron 18-270 (wide to mid range)?

I love my Canon 24-105L. It is sharp, and contrast and color are great. I use it on my 60D, and for my purposes, I can't imagine anything better. I do have a number of sharp primes, and the results from the 24-105L are close - if I do my part.

In terms of sharpness, the 15-85IS is probably as sharp, but I wouldn't want the F5.6 at the long end, and already have a kit lens, the 18-55IS (and the Tokina 12-24). The 24-105L makes the kit lens look poor. There is no doubt about the good resolution of the 18-55IS, and it is light and small, but contrast generally requires a boost in PP.

Since you already have an ultra-wide, the 24-105L would be a great match. AF is fast and accurate, color and contrast are fine, and the lens is sharp. It can be found at a good price, if you shop carefully. I got mine as a white box version from Adorama, but it came in a regular box. I have seen the lens at very good prices lately.

If you want a lens for low lighting and family pictures, consider a fast prime. I use the Canon 35F2 for this.

Thank you for your assessment! Just considering quality and usefulness, I have no doubt the 24-105L is the best choice here, I noticed it immediately in a similiar price range as the Tamron 24-70 with an even more useful focal range. However I'm not from the US so generally the price range of these lenses is south of 1300 USD for me, which I'm not ready yet to invest in a single lens (I'm not taking family photos but travelling around Asia regularly where theft etc. may become an issue). All of my lenses have cost less than 500 USD each, so I had hoped to find a good value for money in that range too. For that reason I also think the Canon 15-85 IS may not offer enough improvement in low-light aperture-wise, especially since it'd cost me more than 800 USD here.

The link below is a tool where you can compare two lenses side by side.  You can change the focal length and f stop.  You can also try different lenses.  I've got it currently set on the canon 18-135 STM and your Tamron 18-270.  I've also tried it with the canon 15-85.  Both of the canon lenses blow the tamron out of the water.  Especially when used wide open.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=809&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=492&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

My primary walk around lens is the 15-85.  My wife uses the 18-135 STM.  We have lenses covering 11mm through 500mm.  But these two are our most used lenses.

Andy

As I mentioned, I'm leaning towards 17-50 due to its sharpness and attractive price, although after learning there is a VC and non-VC version and a lot of controversy about them, I'm in doubt again

My problem is this: one of the reasons I realized I need a replacement for the 18-270 in the midrange is my wish to shoot handheld in low-light - the last I tried this did not "exactly" work out as planned (and quite predictably, you may say). Thus I'm not so sure F/2.8 alone is helping me (in many occasions the depth of field is simply too small, i.e., when shooting indoors) Even though many people opine that IS is not really necessary for the range below 50mm, I can imagine wanting to shoot with shutter speeds below 1/40... I find I often end up there and below (although I don't know how many cases are due to the 18-270 forcing me to use F/8 - as I said - In some situations wider open may work if the lens is shaprer, in others not)

Is there any insight on recent improvements on the 17-50 VC, especially when used together with the 60D? (I read something about AF problems early on) Would this lens be as much an improvement as the mentioned 15-85 (which costs more than twice as much and thus is too expensive for me)?

As for the restricted upper end of the 17-50 (the gap between 50 and 70mm), this would be a less a problem for me - I find I use the range 18-50 on my 18-270 much more than any other range for all the cases I can't change to my 70-300. So it seems a better option for me to start "wide" - otherwise I always would have to carry my ultra-wide lens too (I can imagine in most cases it would be EITHER packing the ultra-wide OR the 17-50 -- I'm already carrying the 70-300 and 18-270 routinely now!)

amosf wrote:

Well, I went for the non-VC model as at the time there was a lot of talk that it had slightly better IQ, and I was mostly looking at moving subjects so I wasn't too worried about VC.

Since then I have seen a lot of people very happy with the VC model, some who had upgraded to it and found the IQ just as good or better, so now I'm starting to wonder if I would have been better off with the VC version.Not that I have had too many issues with what I have.

Without having the two myself I can't really comment on the comparison, but others seem happy with the VC lens.

I just got rid of my Tamron 18-270 and opted for the Tamron 17-50 non-VC.  I will be adding a Canon 70-200L f4 IS for my long range.  I don't think the VC is necessary when that close.  Plus, I tested the VC version and am not a fan of the "drop" adjustment when the stabilization engages - disengages.  It is the same with the 18-270 model.  I haven't spent time shooting with this new lens, but will today.  However, all the reviews remark on this lens's sharpness.  I will add that the AF is quick and much more silent than the 18-270.  IMO

At $499 PLUS a $75 mail in rebate, this lens fits your price point perfectly.  As for the VC vs. non-VC, how did photographers ever take such great shots before this technology arrived?  Save the $200 and put it towards more gear in the future.  : )

I don't have the Tamron non-VC, so I can't comment from personal experience. All the reviews say the optics are good, and better than the VC version.

I have read lots of people complain about the AF in low light for the less expensive lens. That would be a caution for me. None of them complain about AF in bright light, but I would want an F2.8 zoom lens for use when the lighting gets low.