Tamron 17-50 2.8 (Non-VC)

[fridgeymonster3]

I was just wondering if anyone here has the Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non-vc version) and how they like it? It seems to have gotten pretty good reviews and I'm looking for some sort of cheap walk around lens. I have a Canon 7D and I wanted a "walk-around" lens. I have a sigma 30 1.4 and 50 1.4 that I use the majority of the time, but there are some instances where I want the convenience of a zoom. If anybody has any other options, please suggest them. I'm not really looking to spend over $400, as I'm looking to get an UWA lens too besides this lens so I don't want to burn too much cash on a walk-around lens, and I'll most definitely be looking at find a nice used lens. Thanks.

 

[El Cabong]

Don't own one, but I've shot with one (on a 10D, a couple of years ago) and was very pleased with the operation/results. If I hadn't decided to shell out for a Nikkor, I would have gone with the Tamron. The non-VC version, I hear, is sharper than the VC version.

 

[gnd]

I have this lens. It's very sharp, as sharp as the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8. According to the test it is sharper than the new stabilized version, but I have stabilization in the body so that doesn't matter to me. Build quality is comparable to the Canon one and even better in some regards (it has a zoom lock switch and unlike the Canon it doesn't exhibit any zoom creep). Neither of these are sealed though. It might have a bit more CA and might be a little bit more susceptible to flare but the difference is not big.
In my opinion this lens is the best bang for the buck in the normal zoom range.

 

[OreoCookie]

This lens has an excellent bang for the buck: optically it is superior to the new VC version and is about on par with Canon's 17-55 mm f/2.8. It's not as sturdily built, but for the price, it's a steal. I could get one used for 200~250 €, about 1/3~1/4 of the Nikkor