So currently, I have a 18-55m IS kit lens, 50m 1.8, and the 55-250mm ISI'm looking to upgrade and I narrowed it down to these two.1) Get a Tamron 17-50mm non-VC 2.8 and drop my 18-55mm IS and 50mm (or maybe keep that)2) Get a Tamron 18-270mm VC NON-PZD version and drop my 18-55mm IS and my 55-250mm ISSo my question to you guys, which do you think would be a better-all around gear set? Please confine to these two choices if possible.Thanks in advance!

I have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non VC. And base on its results, I highly recommend this baby.At 50, the DoF of this lens won't as shallow as 50 f/1.8 but I think it's good enough to take portrait. At 17, IMO, it's a big leap from 18.I don't have the Tamron 18-270 (my friend does, but I didn't give it a try). Actually, I don't like lenses with such a wide focal range.Here's a sample from Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non VC http://forums.dpreview.com/galleries/2290758252/photos/985356/_mg_8079I couldn't load my gallery on comment -- Totally not-even-amateur Trying to capture everything that get into my eyes

Thanks! Anymore opinions? Looking to get a lens this weekend so any comments would be appreciated.As for the reasons for my two choices:17-50mm = Adds better lowlight capability with zoom (Which the 50mm doesn't provide)18-270mm = Removes necessity to change lenses thus reducing chances of missed pictures

Did you look at thie ongoing thread on this forum on Venice Carnival? All shot with the 18-55 IS.... -- Younes ( Paris, FR) K100D,K10D,D40 + lenses

are not better than the 18-55mm. The image quality on the superzoom 18-270 mm is substantially worse than either the 18-55 or the 55-250 mm. It is actually a major downgrade. If you want to get a significantly better lens, the only two options are the 15-85 mm and the 17-55mm. Both are far more expensive than the lenses you are looking at.I would spend the money on a high quality flash or tripod. Both will do far more for your photography that either of the two lenses you mention. A good PP program like Photoshop Elements or Lightroom is also anecessity.

Thanks for the suggestions but with my budget so far, I can only put the only those Tamron lenses I picked out in (Both for around $350) while the ones you are picked are significantly more expensive. Also, I use my camera as a hobby for on-the-go so a majority of the time, I can't use a tripod or flash so that isn't applicable to me.I do, however, have LR and PS CS5 already though so I got PP covered.

Save your money or buy another toy. Why buy lenses that will not improve your pictures? -- The first camera bag you buy is always too smallhttp://www.flickr.com/geofiz

I have to disagree, the 17-50m offers a more shallow DoF and a overall sharper image.Also, there's more to photography than IQ for the typical hobbyist.For example, as I said, the 18-270 offers convenience and all-in-one lens

Good subject made good pictures, even with quite cheap lenses.Canon 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS are quite good, light, cheap but of course they aren't fast lenses.I'm from Italia, believe me, in Venezia is quite easy to take good pictures also with a Kodak Istamatic during Carnival, because masks are fantastic subject and outside light is enought for many lenses.In my experience Tamron 17-50 non VC is a good, fast, not expensive lens, for general purpose.I don't like slow lenses with wide focal range, even if they are useful for a trip, but not much more useful than two basic zoom.