After I had bought my 70D and was looking for an all-suitable 2,8er lens, I stumbled again on the Canon. And this time I had the money. And I did not bereuht. The small zoom range does not disturb more because I could make loose enlargements or simply'm just extremely happy with AF and image quality. The images are so good that I'm going to buy definitely not prime lenses with f / 2.8 (with the STM the only reason would be). The only good 100 line pairs more and possibly even less than 7 diaphragm blades.
The AF is so quietly and quickly that sometimes you do not know whether he has responded. When looking at the Tamron is accustomed ....
The IS is the only drawback: It is designed only for 3 stops and against the VC the Tamron is a joke, but still not enough and usually makes when shooting his job quite well. Like the USM.
Do not get me wrong: Tamron lenses makes Super and 17-50 VC includes safe to do so. But it is not always on it, but a cheap and good way to take good pictures in dunklenen environments. However, the Canon is so good that it can always stay on it. What also has its price. I think I'll still the 15-85 envisage. The two together cover almost anything from traveling required.
Back to the topic: The 17-55 is completely professional fit and you feel well. As the zoom and focus systems run as angfühlt what it weighs, how it looks .... and what it does for images. One should take the money only in the hand, if you often use this lens and not planning on full format to upgrade. Otherwise you should select the Tamron 17-50 VC due to the anti-roll bars or the Sigma 17-50 due to the similar picture quality. For zukfüngtige Vollformatler the same applies. Who has covered the WW area and would like to go to full-frame, it puts a good 100 and also takes a Tamron: The 24-70 VC USD.