ssss said:DexterRobot said:

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.

http://www.wantsoda.com/MDX-HDR.jpg
http://www.wantsoda.com/MDX-HDR2.jpg
http://www.wantsoda.com/MDX.jpg

All taken with my original 1G Digital Rebel

Dude, you can not stack a polarizer on top of a protective filter. The samples you have are severely vignetted.

Vignetting was post using Photoshop. Thanks for noticing that though. I would never do that.

avatar13 said:I too own the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens mounted on a 40D however I find that the focus accuracy is a bit off. I have tried two copies now and I find that at f/2.8 using the longest focal length (50mm) the lens will front focus 2 out of 3 times.

Thanks for the mini review. Could I ask how the camera does in low light settings? I'm seriously considering this lens as a walk about lens, but mainly as a lens for say indoor/lowish light shots. The wide aperture makes it VERY appealing to me over the f/4 L lens.

Also, why are non-USM lenses generally frowned upon in reviews? Do non-USM lenses tend to fail after so many shots/experience problems? Thanks!

Dealguy123 said:
Thanks for the mini review. Could I ask how the camera does in low light settings? I'm seriously considering this lens as a walk about lens, but mainly as a lens for say indoor/lowish light shots. The wide aperture makes it VERY appealing to me over the f/4 L lens.

Also, why are non-USM lenses generally frowned upon in reviews? Do non-USM lenses tend to fail after so many shots/experience problems? Thanks!

The main reason I got the f/2.8 lens was for low light conditions so I could stay away from flash. It handles just the way you would expect a fast f/2.8 lens coupled with the Canon 40D. The 40D has very fast focusing and I haven't exerienced any "focus hunting" problems, except maybe once when there were wasn't enough contrast in the subject for it to lock on. If you read reviews for this lens they are generally very favorable, it has very high quality glass and it's very sharp from corner to corner. However like I mentioned in my previous post, many online reviews will also point out that this lens is at its maximum sharpness when stopped down 2 or 3 stops. Because of the lack of IS the f/2.8 will help a lot in the low light indoor shots you are looking to shoot. IS is not all that bad though, I would definitely buy a f/2.8 IS lens if price was not a factor! The new Canon IS lenses can give you around 3 stops I think so you can definitely get sharp photos handheld at slow shutters like 1/15 or maybe even 1/10 if you have very steady hands. If you try to shoot 1/15 on the Tamron it will definitely show blur, of course with f/2.8 aperture you may not need to drop to 1/15, you could probably get equivalent exposure at around 1/40.

Having said that IMHO IS would be most useful on a longer zoom lens, a short range zoom like this wouldn't require as much IS, the wider angle and faster lens are more important I think. Try shooting low light at 200mm without IS and unless it's a really fast lens you'll see a lot of blur.

jfoust said:
Well what good does it to do post sample shots of a lens when you've PP'ed the pic to death and they're HDR shots anyhow. If you truly want to post sample pics that might mean something, put up some 100% crops that are completely unprocessed.

Understood... I'll remove them! They were the few shots that I have handy that I took with my lens but I see your point.

Can you go back to all the quoted messages and remove the links?

This is not a hot deal, since it is about the regular price for the lens. Whether the lens is worth 1 grand or not, is a completely separate debate. I have extensively personally shot with following lenses
kit lens 18-55
canon 17-85 IS
Canon 17-55 IS
canon 24-105 f4L IS
canon 28-70 f 2.8L
Tamron 28-75 f2.8.
3 L primes, and 2 more L zooms.
There is a lot of misinformation here on this board. Look at Photozone.de for reliable lens test. My experience,
17-55 has excellent sharpness corner to corner wide open. CA is well controlled, its a little prone to flare, which is improved by using the lens hood. Color and contrast not as good as the L lenses, but still very good. Fast and confident focusing. When I was shooting a crop, it was just an awesome lens for my shooting style (walk around, travel, nature, indoor low light). sold it when I moved to 5D.
The other negative things are
1. Many tend to collect dust under the front element. Mine had 2 specs during the first 2 months, then I put a filter on it, and for the remaining 8 months, no problems. may or may not be related.
2. There are several reports that the IS system is a little more prone to breaking.
What is your ideal walk around lens depends on the subject matter and the condition under which you shoot, as well as your pocket.
the first number 2-14, not including the dog picture, and the baby picture
collection, link on individual images for larger version

A recent shot of mine with the 17-55mm f/2.8 on a Canon 40D:

Text

Probably representative of what you can expect of this fine lens mounted on a fine camera handled with a complete lack of skill.

Yeah this price isn't that great. I picked it up in January for $854 from B&H Photo. $999 is pretty much exactly retail price.

That said, this is a pretty good lens. For a crop body, the 17-85 is a more useful lens, though, and half the price. People talk about the 17-55 as if it's an L glass without the L designation, but having used it for 8 months (just sold it, actually), it's not THAT good. It lacks the critical sharpness, especially at 1:1 magnification, and is just generally lacking what makes an L lens and L lens. The build quality is pretty ghastly, and nothing compared to a 24-70 or a 24-105 L.

Now some might argue the 2.8 awesomeness of the 17-55, but, honestly, and from my experience, 2.8 isn't fast enough for indoor use anyway, at least not without some ISO implementation, so fast primes still have their use. At this point the 17-55 is a fairly limited everyday lens. I just don't find it has enough reach. It goes nicely wide for a crop body, but doesn't zoom enough. I owned this lens with my 40D, and just found it frustrated me too much. I switched to a 5D with a 24-105 IS F4 L, and would never go back.

So, I'd go for the 17-85 f4-f5.6, and enjoy a more useful, lighter, cheaper everyday lens than the 2.8 17-55. Add a nifty fifty (50mm 1.8 Canon prime) for about $80 and you'll be golden indoor and out.

Also, if you're ever going to a full-frame body like a 5D, the ever-impending 5D MKII, or a 1D etc, you won't be able to use the 17-55 since it's an EF-S lens. $1k is a lot of money for an EF-S lens...

Just something to bear in mind..

A good review of the 17-55mm.

Which I agree with of course *L*

Celeritas said:I am not sure about the 17-44 L lens as it does not even have IS.

It's not bad, but kind of unusable at night, being f/4 and all. some saples of an accident scene at night
Not terrible, but I tossed probably 75% because of blur. Being at 17 helps, but...

DexterRobot said:Dealguy123 said:Kevindar said:the first number 2-14, not including the dog picture, and the baby picture
collection, link on individual images for larger version

Wow! Incredible photos!

Did you use a polarizer filter for a lot of those outdoors shots?

Indeed, amazing photos. I wish you would have shared the original resolution and some exif data. Sometimes a cropped and resized tends to boost the sharpness.

Thanks for sharing though.
Dexter, I initially tried to link to the large version, but someone pmed me that the link says permission is not given. I am not sure why it is not allowing people to look at the larger images. I unblocked the exif data, so now they are availabe. when I sign out then go to my photostream, it will only show the medium size images. I never realized it does not show large size images to other people. I looked under my settings and do not see something which will allow or disallow people from seeing the larger images. wonder how that works.
I think you may have to be signed in to flicker to be able to see larger images.

Edit PS. after further research it seems like the only way I can allow people to see the larger size is to allow download unfortunately.