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

bronxbombers4 wrote:

The canon 75-300 you have is a very blurry lens and the tamron 17-50 is very sharp (for anything but very, very close in shooting), so for an IQ upgrade it's easy to say the 75-300 would be the one to swap out.

I was blown away by how sharp my 17-50 2.8 was.

One unfortunate thing is Canon marketing took MFA out of the 60D, some of your problems might very well be that you need micro focus adjustment.

The tamron 17-50 af is a bit slower than the 17-55 or 24-70L.

So, for the micro focus adjustment on a Tamron lens--would I send that to Tamron?  Or is that something that can be done at a local camera shop?

Thanks for the info.  And I have switched my focus on replacing the 75-300 now, and likely keeping the Tamron.  Everyone seems to agree that the 75-300 is a crummy lens!

And here when I changed from film to digital, the camera store worker told me that me already having the 75-300 lens was a main reason for me to buy the Canon instead of a Nikon body.  "No reason to buy a new lens, when you have that one" is what he said.  Who knew.

My 2 cents..get the 15-85mm IS. a great all round lens. It will give very high and consistent results, Excellent range.

My 2 cents..get the 15-85mm IS. a great all round lens. It will give very high and consistent results, Excellent range.

Out of curiosity, how do you like your efs 15-135, compared to your 17-55?
--
Jennifer

Should read to the 15 to 85..... I was temporarily confuzzled.
--
Jennifer

Once you buy the sigma 17-50mm f2.8 or the canon 17-55mm f2.8, you might feel that the Tamron u had offered more for its price. Thats natural.

In terms of optical quality, Canon's 17-55mm f2.8 is the best. Excellent corner sharpness & IMHO the best general purpose lens for walkaround on an APS-C. But it is expensive. The sigma 17-50mm f2.8 is the next best choice but I it lacks FTM which could be a useful feature.

While I own the 15-85mm, I must say that I am not very pleased with the 'optical quality' of the lens. Many people in this forum say great things about it. But I am not sure how many of them are really honest. For e.g. the 4 stops IS - I felt it good with 3 stops & not sure if one gets 4 stops of IS. With extreme distortions & CA, it does feel a big expensive. At the same time, the lens is very sharo from 70-85mm focal lengths & also the 15mm is quite wide. The AF is fast & build quality is good.

Hence would rate 17-55mm f2.8 Canon-> 17-50mm f2.8 Sigma -> 15-85mm Canon.

So here are my best attempt at comparing the same subject with the Canon 24-70 L f/2.8, the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 and the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 on my 60D:

with the 24-70 f/2.8

24-70 f/2.8 at f/2.8

with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS at f/2.8

with my tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-vc

Damoo wrote:

Once you buy the sigma 17-50mm f2.8 or the canon 17-55mm f2.8, you might feel that the Tamron u had offered more for its price. Thats natural.

In terms of optical quality, Canon's 17-55mm f2.8 is the best. Excellent corner sharpness & IMHO the best general purpose lens for walkaround on an APS-C. But it is expensive. The sigma 17-50mm f2.8 is the next best choice but I it lacks FTM which could be a useful feature.

While I own the 15-85mm, I must say that I am not very pleased with the 'optical quality' of the lens. Many people in this forum say great things about it. But I am not sure how many of them are really honest. For e.g. the 4 stops IS - I felt it good with 3 stops & not sure if one gets 4 stops of IS. With extreme distortions & CA, it does feel a big expensive. At the same time, the lens is very sharo from 70-85mm focal lengths & also the 15mm is quite wide. The AF is fast & build quality is good.

Hence would rate 17-55mm f2.8 Canon-> 17-50mm f2.8 Sigma -> 15-85mm Canon.

Great info.  Thanks for the comparison!