Thoughts on the EFS 17-55 2.8 IS USM, Or alternatives

[AnzacPride]

Hi all
After changing my mind on getting a macro as my next lens purchase, I have decided a better quality all rounder like the EFS 17-55 2.8 IS USM would get more use and be more versatile,

My quandry is this, At atleast $1000 its a bit more than I would like to spend.

Does anyone know of, and even better have first hand experience with any third party equivalent lenses to suit my 550D?

Cheers Dan

[triptych]

I just bought a Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 VC. It only arrived yesterday but seems to be really good quality for its price and all the reviews i've read on it have been excellent! I bought mine for around $500

[AnzacPride]

Thanks triptych
Ive been reading a few reviews this evening and think I might take the Sigma AF 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM OS,
I would be keen to see some samples from the Tamron once you have some,

Cheers Dan

[dulvariprestige]

I went from a canon 24-105 to the 17-55, and I do think the IQ is a little better than the 24-105, well the one I had anyway, and 2.8 plus IS does come in handy at times, and while 17mm is nice on a crop sensor at times, I find I miss the long end more.

For me, I wish I had gone the 24-70, which I still might.

[bargain]

Wondering the same thing myself at the moment...

dulvariprestige, would you prefer the f/2.8 in the 24-70 over IS and the extra length of the 24-105?

[dulvariprestige]

dulvariprestige, would you prefer the f/2.8 in the 24-70 over IS and the extra length of the 24-105?

After renting a 24-70 for a weekend I'd say yes, I'd prefer the extra stop of light and shallower DOF than IS, IS doesn't help when your subject is moving and you can't get a fast enough SS, the extra 15mm doesn't sound like much, but it did make a difference, and if I find myself needing more reach, I can always switch to the 70-200,
After say this, a 17-55mm on the 7d, has a similar EFL of a 24-70 on a FF, which is one of the most common combos out there, maybe I should just zoom with my feet more lol

[AnzacPride]

I find myself using my 50mm 1.8 and 18-55 far more often so I think the either canon 17-55 or the Sigma/tamron versions will suit me.
Im still unsure if the extra cash to go for the canon version will be worth it, from the reviews Ive read apart from the full time manual focus the Sigma performs very close to the Canon, maybe even sharper at some focal lengths and with very little CA.
Has anyone got any experience with the Sigma?

Cheers Dan

[fairy bombs]

I bought a second hand copy of this lens here in the for sale section about a year ago-it came with the canon hood and two filters.It was not cheap,but I have been very happy with the results-the colours seem much better than the old 17-55 kit lens and 17-85 (canon) lens I use to have.

I thought long and hard between a 24-70 L and this lens,In the end,I choose the 17-55 F 2.8,as I am a crop user,and also there was a LARGE amount of negative reports on the 24-70.Also the 17-55 has IS,I knew I wanted to use the lens I chose at dusk a lot-groups of people etc,so this was am important point for me.

The down side of this lens is that it has reports of 'sucking dust',Mine is good but I have recently noticed a few specs inside.Not that a few affects images.

There is a U tube clip on how to clean it,but when time comes I will send mine away to Canon.I use mine on 450D and 50D,It mainly is on my 450D,and gets a good amount of use-If I had to replace this lens I'd get another.

I hope this helps-FB

[reaction]

Sigma AF 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM OS
great IQ, sharper than Tamron VC
comes with lens hood (+$70 for canon)