I think I've narrowed my choices down to either the Tamron 17-50 2.8 or the Canon 18-135 STM. I like the reach of the 18-135, but I like the 2.8 of the Tamron. I seem to go through a lot of gear, both in photography and in guitars, so resale value is important to me.

Would the Canon 18-135 be easier to sell down the road over the Tamron or should I not concern myself with that and just go for the best lens? I really like some of the sample shots I've seen with the Tamron 17-50. I've seen some wedding photographers use it and they get some great shots with it. If I did buy it, I'd probably also go for either a 70-300 or a 55-250 to cover the reach.

Anyway, thoughts on what lens would be better......taking into consider IQ and resale value.

Buy used. I don't think the tamron has changed in value much (300-350) in the past 3-4 years.

It may lose value if tamron starts selling it for less but that can happen with the canon too.

These canon is less proven, its too new and just not af hot an item IMHO.

These are my two cents based completely on value retention. They are very different lenses. I suggest buying used, preferably from a trusted source and/or able to test it out. A sharp copy of the tamron is always in demand, again IMHO.

It seems to me that one's primary reason for buying a lens is to make photographs, not recoup a slightly larger percentage of the sale price at some future date. Or, if you prefer a more logical way of looking at it, what is the monetary value per year of having the functionality of the lens that best suits your needs? $100? $200? $5?

Dan

Yes the resale value will be less, but the functionality is awesome! It performs close to the canon 17-55 2.8 IS for less than half price. It is a good buy since it may be the only lens you need for almost everything.

The tammy 17-50 is a great lens, and I did use it for weddings for 2 seasons. If you are worried about resale, buy it used to begin with and you'll be fine. I don't think you'll have any trouble selling either down the road

Yeah, I do plan on buying used. The 18-135 I'd around $350 and the 17-50 around $400.

It really no contest the 18-135 is so slow by comparison.

I was not happy with the Tamron 17-50/2.8 non-VC on Nikon D7000, and sold it. Focus was slower and not as accurate as Canon and Nikon lenses I owned. The new 18-135 STM is supposed to have excellent (and quiet) AF, suitable for video. No question that I'd buy the Canon choice.

Resale value is more closely associated with optical performance than it is with brand name. A crappy Tamron and a crappy Canon both decline in value more rapidly than a quality lens of the same name.

wilt wrote:
Resale value is more closely associated with optical performance than it is with brand name. A crappy Tamron and a crappy Canon both decline in value more rapidly than a quality lens of the same name.

This. People don't upgrade to bad lenses.

tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc is awesome

i preferred it to the 17-40L on aps-c

who knows about resale value, even L's don't hold it to like 95%-105% like they used to
i don't know why a non-famous L Canon would hold value any more than the tamron

focus on the lens you want

As Wilt suggested, good lenses tend to preserve their value. Check the Lens Price Database for recent price information.

Lens$db, http://tinyurl.com/jcolwell-lensdb

I have had both and really liked the Tamron better. As far as Tamron vs. Canon resale value, in this case I would think it is a toss-up.

buy used, the non vc version of the tamron is supposed to be very sharp, the vc version apparently is a little softer, but both are pretty good buys in the used market especially for the price.

robbymack wrote:
buy used, the non vc version of the tamron is supposed to be very sharp, the vc version apparently is a little softer, but both are pretty good buys in the used market especially for the price.

Since most of our photos will be candid family shots, I asked my wife to get in the habit of using the camera on a regular basis during the day. When I asked her about lenses, she said she thought a prime lens would be easier because she could focus on just taking pictures instead of zooming and then having the aperture change when she zooms. I'm considering the sigma 30 1.4, but I guess the 17/50 2.8 would be good too as the aperture could stay fixed and shed just have to change shutter speed accordingly.

How familiar with cameras is your wife? It can be a lot easier with most of the modes on a DSLR, where she can set the maximum aperture and just shoot with auto shutter speed and auto ISO; if she is okay with the 5.6 maximum, she can use the 18-135 just fine.

Both the Sigma 30 and the Tamron 17-50mm come highly rated. Of course, Sigma used to have a bad rep about AF out of the box, but I recently bought a new one from a store and it focused fine on my 60D. Again, test if used or ask for receipt for warranty or calibration purposes unless you own a 50D or 7D.