Canon 17-55 2.8 / Sigma 17-50 2.8 / Tamron 17-50 2.8

[jp2k5]

Hi All,

I have an EOS 7D which was purchased with the 18-200mm kit lens over a year ago. I mainly purchased this camera for sporting events (equestrian and motor sport) and to try my hand at a spot of birding. I soon followed up with the Canon 50mm f/1.8 for a bit of experimentation and also a Sigma 150-500 which I have been very happy with and find I use almost all the time.

I'd now like to extend my photographic subjects to people, candids and portraits. Although the 50mm f/1.8 does a good job for shots I can plan, I still find myself struggling for family gathering and party shots that require a wider lens on my cropped camera.

So my thoughts are:
1. Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF
2. Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM
3. Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

I'm impressed with the bang-for-buck I got with my Sigma 150-500 and I'm not sure I'll appreciate the extra money spent on the Canon 17-55 at this stage, which pretty much narrows it down to the Siggy and the Tammy.

The OS is the biggest functional difference between the 2, but I'm after some feedback as to whether its needed on this length lens, when hand holding and shooting portraits.

A grey Tammy looks achievable for around $400 (local $550)
A grey Siggy is around $700 (local $850)
A grey Canon is around $1300 (local $1700)

I've read quite a few reviews and I'm looking for your input to confuse help me some more please Any feedback is welcomed.

Thanks.

[Max]

I can confuse you some more, what about the 15-85?
The 2 mm at the wide end makes quite a difference. I find that I need it for family shots and kids parties.
It definitely makes a real good general purpose/ party package when coupled with a flash.

Since you already have a 50 1.8, you may find that 2.8 isn`t all that bright when indoors, that is what I find anyway and really I wished I had bought the 1.4.
For portraits of the kids I find that 50 is a bit short, I reach for the 100 macro and may add a 85 1.8 in future.

[dulvariprestige]

I'll throw in some more confusion, have you thought about the 24-70, I know people say it's not wide enough for a crop sensor camera, but I find I rarely go to 17mm when taking shots of people, and if you find that you need wider, throw on your 18-200, if you're taking a shot of a big group you won't be needing 2.8, so the smaller aperture on the 18-200 would be fine.
You can pick up a sigma non HSM 24-70 for around the $500-$600 mark, I've been seriously thinking of off loading my 17-55 for either the canon or sigma 24-70.
I should have kept my 24-105

[cadadblog]

mmm, are you comparing the sigma and the canon to the non-vc version of the tamron? do you need the image stabilisation? i had the tamron 17-50 non-vc in the past, and i think it's pretty sharp and works fine! althought i reckon the sigma has better colours but you might run into some problem with regards to the quality control of sigma lenses. i have friends who's sigma lenses gave them headaches (and so did mine)

nonetheless, the best option (as you know already!) would be the canon. but i reckon the tamron's the safest option to go for my 2 cents!