>>3986336Yes. I've tried all three 2.8 stabilized standard zooms for Canon. The Canon is slightly sharper in some scenarios, but it seems to suffer from electrical failures of it's IS system, which is obviously fucking critical... It's also bigger, heavier, and much more expensive.
The Tamron is depressingly shitty because of low contrast. It is actually pretty sharp, but everything *looks* soft because the contrast is that bad. So is the CA and corner sharpness.
I fucking love my 17-50, and anyone who tells you it has shitty AF hasn't touched one. Having a fast, stabilized standard zoom will make the difference between a toy and a real, useful camera you can use in natural light. Your hit rate for everything will quadruple, and you'll enjoy photography vastly more. I can handhold this lens down to 1/4 at most focal lengths, 1/20 at full zoom easily.
>>3987838My copy focused perfectly on 250D, 200D, M200 and M50. I can't explain your experience there, since the lens is even older than your camera...
>>3986404This lens is godly, but start with a stabilized standard zoom. The 18-35 is mostly a studio/tripod/video lens, and much less useful for general purpose photography. If I had an IBIS body, it might never leave my camera, though.
