A&P Tamron 17-20mm or Canon 17-55mm IS... which one?

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by pullmancrew, May 25, 2009.

  1. pullmancrew

    pullmancrew New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tamron 17-50mm or Canon 17-55mm IS... which one?

    for use on a 40D.


    I can afford the Canon, but is it worth $500 more than the tamron?
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2009
  2. derekOT

    derekOT New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Calgary, AB
    i believe you mean the tamron 17-50mm

    I have used both, both are sharp and highly recommended

    However, the features of the Canon are why I kept it. Since i do a lot of low light sports photography I wanted the USM of the Canon.

    Also, the IS has saved the day many times in lowlight flash-free photography allowing me to get very sharp images at shutter speeds of 1/15 and below.

    Ultimately, I would say that if you need the faster focus or the IS, Canon is the choice. But if you don't need them, the Tamron is absolutely excellent
     
  3. GlobeGuy

    GlobeGuy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,974
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have not used the Canon 17-55 IS, but at the focal length I'm going to say that IS is not worth extra $500 to me.
     
  4. pullmancrew

    pullmancrew New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    0
    whoops, ya i meant 50mm.

    how much faster is the USM compared to the Tamron?
     
  5. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    cougar crew :h5:

    I'm guessing that the price difference would land you another piece or 2 of gear you probably need
     
  6. Jbrown

    Jbrown OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Messages:
    44,497
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Dallas
    I love my 17-55 2.8 IS
     
  7. tenplanescrashing

    tenplanescrashing Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    i'd take the Tamron 17-50 and use that extra money for more gear.
     
  8. derekOT

    derekOT New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Calgary, AB
    imho it is necessary to have USM for action photography, especially low light
     
  9. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    I don't see the point of IS on a 55mm but to some it's worth the extra money.
     
  10. FlashhslaF

    FlashhslaF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2003
    Messages:
    4,586
    Likes Received:
    0
    faster focus and IS and a bit better IQ. I've owned both and i wouldn't go back to the Tamron, not because its bad.

    Canon has its positives, but if u don't care about IS which does come in handy in low light and low focus noise from the motor then stick w/ the Tamron, it will serve you well.
     
  11. tetsuo

    tetsuo And shepherds we shall be...

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    9,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    unless you already have all the other lenses you would want/need, i wouldn't spend the extra $500+. i would rather have the 17-50 and another lens than the 17-55.
     
  12. nindia

    nindia OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Messages:
    37,039
    Likes Received:
    141
    Location:
    earf
    if you can afford it...the canon

    but the 17-50 is a wicked lens for half the price :dunno:
     
  13. NYM3

    NYM3 Is this teal life or is it....fanta-sea?

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    61,051
    Likes Received:
    665
    Location:
    Gunshine state
    you experienced this also? I thought I was going crazy and had to get mine fixed. Sounds like its the IS system:hs:
     

Share This Page