another which 17-50 mm lens question.

[Redback200]

I am looking at getting a 17-50mm F2.8 lens as a walk around and an upgrade from the very old 18.-200mm Sigma that I have. but I can't decide which one to get or to drop some extra money and get a 17-40mm canon L lens.

I have used the 17-40 before and it feels nice and I like the colours from it. But I'm not entirely sold on it. I'm not planning to go FF at this stage and am thinking that F2.8 instead of 4 and IS could be a good thing.

Has anyone had experience with the following and if so what is your thoughts with them?
-Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM
-Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II VC LD Aspherical [IF]
-Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM

Would the extra stop and IS be worth it or would it be worth spending the extra on the canon. I'm not looking at the Canon 17-55mm IS because it's our of my price range.

This is mostly going to be used for landscapes and probably party/portrait shots so low light performance can be a factor.

thanks

[Mary Anne]

Yes the Canon 17-55mm is a great fast lens I have it on my 40D though I can understand it being out of you budget.

[Redback200]

Hi Mary Anne,

The Tamron is about $400, The sigma about $600, The Canon EF 17-40 can be obtained new for about $800, The Canon 17-55 f2.8 I have seen for about $1100. I guess I could save for longer to get it. but is the difference really going to be worth the extra cash? I guess that is really my question. I'm leaning towards the sigma 17-50 f2.8 but thinking maybe the 17-40 L could be worth it too.

[Old Skool]

I had the Canon 17-40, lovely IQ / colours with it but didn't like the distortion with it at wide angle on a crop frame camera (Canon 50D) Sold it and got the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 non VC and loved it. The Tamron is a really sharp lens and great bang for your buck. If you didn't need the f2.8 though, I would get the Canon EF-S 15-85 lens. Beautiful colour, sharp and a great walk around lens to leave on your camera.