Everyone, I did not mean to start a debate on which lens is better. Everyone has different needs and thus no single lens can be declared better than another. For example, I own a Rebel XTi and I have a Canon 24-105 f/4L mounted on it. At the wide end 24mm range, it's wide enough for what I do and that is portraiture and many group shots (38mm equivalent because of the 1.6 crop factor; Math 24mm x 1.6 = 38mm).

Price, build quality, type of range desired, lighting conditions, and many more factors also need to be considered.

I acknowledge though that in many situations, we find ourselves requiring a wider lens and this is where this lens may fit the gap for those with cropped bodies. It produces very sharp and good contrast images as stated in many reviews available on the web.

Dealguy123 said:If I was in the market for a "wide angle" ef-s mount lens.. I think I'd have to give a HARD look at the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens. Yes, I realize it doesn't have IS or a USM motor (so it's noisy), but considering it's less than half the price, it's a fair tradeoff imo. This lens is supposed to be very sharp.. the only thing lacking is the IS. I own the 50mm f/1.4 and 28-135mm canon IS lens, and I'm strongly considering the Tamron lens or something in the 17-50mm variety that isn't too costly (<$500).

I have thought about the 17-40mm L lens, but the aperture isn't very wide, and wouldn't do nearly as well as this lens or the Tamron in low light. Also, having a little larger of a focal length helps.

I have both lenses. The Tamron does give the 17-55 a run for it's money, especially at the price. It's also much lighter, smaller, and comes w/ a lens hood. However, I do find the 17-55 to be superior in contrast and focusing speed (Tamron lens is not USM). Throw in the IS and full-time manual, and I'll let you decide if the extra $500 is worth it.

The 17-55 is not the only lens to collect dust either. My Tamron had 1 or 2 specks inside it's front element as well.

garycoleman said:That is "L" lens price range. You might as well get the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L for $1050.

Don't even waste your money on this lens, I have the EF 24-70 f/2.8L and the L glass is amazing.

-Eric

I am not sure about the 17-44 L lens as it does not even have IS. Personally i think 24-105mm is a much better lens it's not EF-S therefore, one can use it on full frame cameras e.g. the 1D Mark III

17-55 is not walkaround lens. The range is too small. Heck you can also walkaround with a fixed 50mm prime but you won't be able to capture much.

24-105 F4/L, EF-S 17-85 can be considered as walkaround lenses.

king0fSpades said:17-55 is not walkaround lens. The range is too small. Heck you can also walkaround with a fixed 50mm prime but you won't be able to capture much.

24-105 F4/L, EF-S 17-85 can be considered as walkaround lenses.

Depends on what you like to shoot.

edit: for anyone interested, approximate difference between 17mm and 24mm

Celeritas said:I am not sure about the 17-44 L lens as it does not even have IS. Personally i think 24-105mm is a much better lens it's not EF-S therefore, one can use it on full frame cameras e.g. the 1D Mark III

I currently have both lenses the 17-40L and the 24-105L. I use my 24-105 as my walk around lens and use the 17-40 when I need the wide angle. I find the 17-40 superior to the 24-105 in sharpness, it's my favorite lens to use. However, I would love to upgrade to the 16-35 2.8L from my 17-40.

Celeritas said:I am not sure about the 17-44 L lens as it does not even have IS. Personally i think 24-105mm is a much better lens it's not EF-S therefore, one can use it on full frame cameras e.g. the 1D Mark III

First, it is a 17-40. Second, IS is SO overrated for lenses in that range. Much more important on my 70-200 F4L IS.

I would rather have the 17-40L for under $600 or even the Tamron F2.8 17-50 for $400.

WilliamG said:24-70 is not useful on a crop. Not wide enough.My 24-70 is on my 40D (crop camera) approximately 98.2785% of the time.

Buy what you need. If you need a wide angle then buy a wide angle. If you need a zoom then buy a zoom. Everybody's needs are different so there is not a one lens fits all solution.

ssss said:Dealguy123 said:If I was in the market for a "wide angle" ef-s mount lens.. I think I'd have to give a HARD look at the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens. Yes, I realize it doesn't have IS or a USM motor (so it's noisy), but considering it's less than half the price, it's a fair tradeoff imo.

The Tamron is truly s superb choice if you can live without a totally silent motor. Optically, it is every bit as good as the Canon 17-55 f2.8 and better than the 17-40L f4.
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 performance
Canon 17-55mm f2.8 performance
Canon 17-40mm f4 performance

I concur with many other users that have posted about the Tamron. I did a lot of research and also looked at price/performance and I went with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It's extremely sharp and very well built. I didn't think the IS would be all that necessary IN MY OPINION with a short range lens.

Here are a couple of samples and it does not do justice! Also, the focusing is acceptable in my opinion under low light but I do agree Canon USM is much faster.

<REMOVED PER JFOUST AS HDR AND PHOTOSHOP IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO SHOW SAMPLES OF THE LENSE>
<REMOVED PER JFOUST AS HDR AND PHOTOSHOP IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO SHOW SAMPLES OF THE LENSE>
<REMOVED PER JFOUST AS HDR AND PHOTOSHOP IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO SHOW SAMPLES OF THE LENSE>

All taken with my original 1G Digital Rebel