Which 17(18)-55 2.8?

[denno75uk]

So I'm definitely getting either the Sigma, Tamron or Canon. I like the range of the kit lens and am mounting it more and more, but it doesn't give me enough over my 28-105.
From what I've read the Tamron is the better bet over the Sigma so that's probably the Sig out. I also know that the Canon probably beats them both hands down and then plays it's IS trump card.
Thing is, I could afford the Sigma or Tamron now but the Canon would require more overtime/credit card abuse. The cheaper options also look a bit like a compromise, but are they a worthy compromise (ie: is the Canon really worth an extra £350). Gut feeling is that the Tamron is enough.
I will end up head to head with the missus whatever I do so that isn't something to concern us at this juncture.
Advice/marriage guidance much appreciated.

[Tobers]

I have the Canon but no experience of either of the other two I'm afraid.

All I can say about the Canon is that it is very good indeed. Image quality, contrast and sharpness are all excellent. Bokeh is superb as well. Sharpness does go a bit soft at f18 and above though.

The IS has proven extremely useful for me taking all sorts of pics in low light. It works very well indeed.

Aside from softness at small apertures, the only other issue is that it does suck dust in as you zoom in (and the front of the lens extends, creating a vacuum sucking stuff in). Image quality doesn't suffer, but if mine gets too dusty I'll ask Canon to give it a clean inside.

[Radiohead]

I don't believe the Canon to be any better optically than the Tamron and I had a good look at the Canon last month. The build isn't as good as the cost suggests and almost everyone shooting with it over at DWF has had a problem with the IS or build. Compared to the 24-70 (similar price) it's not even close.

For that reason (and because I think the Canon is way overpriced) I'd have a serious look at the Tamron (unless you shoot a lot in quiet events as the AF isn't that quiet).

[denno75uk]

Cheers chaps.

Tobers, your comments basically echo what I've read and seen on this forum. It's obviously a great lens.

Radiohead, I think what your saying about the Tamron is hitting home. For my needs it seems to fit the bill nicely and it's nice to get the opinion of someone who has had a go. With regards the AF motor noise, am I likely to find it worse than my 28-105 which is USM?

Anyone else with some experience of either of these lenses are welcome to offer advice.

[Bursar]

I'm a sucker for IS, so the Canon 17-55 was my choice. I haven't really had much chance to use it yet though (grumble, weather, grumble). Fingers crossed I'll get out this weekend with it.

[Brammers]

Tamron has excellent sharpness, but maybe its build quality isn't up to it? One of my friends has written his off after dropping it.

Sigma is excellent all-round but also includes a close-focus ability. Might be useful?

Canon - you pay £350 extra for IS and USM? I could buy another body for that :D (ok, stop it!) IS & USM are both great - I'm sure once you've gotten over the initial ouch factor you won't regret it.

Also - Tokina 16-50 2.8. Will be built like a tank, optics will be top notch (see their matching 50-135 2.8) and should be cheap too. You'll have to wait a while though.