Which Would be Best

[mata.morrison]

Hi all, lookign at up-grading my Lens collection a bit over the next week or two. Finding it hard to choose so what whould you go for?

I will have around £450 no more than that so I am looking second hand. My current line up is Canon 18-55is, Canon 50mm 1.8, Canon 55-250is (which I'm keeping) and Sigma 10-20 f4.

My thoughs are selling the 18-55 and the 50, which gives me the £450. Getting a Tamron 17-50 2.8 (Non-VC) and a Sigma 30 1.4. This will give me a fast prime (I feel the 50 is not wide enough) and the Tamrom will give me a good fast everyday lens. The other option is forget a prime and go for a 17-40L, it's slower at f4 but the red ring haha, and probably better IQ coming from it.

I just can't decide however I think I am leaning to the 17-50/30 combo. Anything else I should consider?

 

[woof woof]

IMVHO a 17-40mm f4 just does not make any sense on an APS-C camera. It was designed (years ago...) as a wide angle lens for "full frame" cameras and only makes sense as such IMVHO.

I've had both the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and Sigma 30mm f1.4 and I think they're both very good lenses. The 17-50mm f2.8 will be much better than the 17-40mm (ignore the red ring and instead check the reviews, I think it'll be "better" than the 17-40mm) and it's f2.8, and the 30mm will give you an equiv field of view of 48mm which could be very useful

 

[mata.morrison]

Ahh thanks for that, hmm didn't realise the 17-40 was that old and for FF, just the range seemed Crop but then again I should have read more. Good to hear someone who has had both of these and got on well with them.

Any others I am missing?

 

[Jon Chalk]

Do you not want anything longer? I've got almost identical set of lenses, but also have the good old non-IS 70-200L f4 + a 1.4x extender for long work.

 

[pete.rush]

IMVHO a 17-40mm f4 just does not make any sense on an APS-C camera. It was designed (years ago...) as a wide angle lens for "full frame" cameras and only makes sense as such IMVHO.

I've had both the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and Sigma 30mm f1.4 and I think they're both very good lenses. The 17-50mm f2.8 will be much better than the 17-40mm (ignore the red ring and instead check the reviews, I think it'll be "better" than the 17-40mm) and it's f2.8, and the 30mm will give you an equiv field of view of 48mm which could be very useful

Excuse my french but Bo!!ocks, why not, the canon 17-40mm f4 a great lens, primarily for landscapes, its the cheaper alternative to the 16-35mm f2.8 MKII, so the only question is, would you be hand holding camera + lens in a lot of low light conditions, and hence the extra f-stop comes in handy, if not then why not the 17-40mm f4

In that range of lenses

you have the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 Non IS very good lens and at a very good price.
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 IS not that great optically for some reason.
Canon's 15-85mm f3.4 -5.6 IS (EF-S) this lens has got a load of rave reviews, probably helped by its IS system and also has the extra range.
Canon's 17-55mm f2.8 IS probably the lens EF-S lens you could put on your cropped body as a general purpose lens, but you're paying the extra $$ so perhaps look for a 2nd hand one.

Sigma's offerings fall a bit short (image quality) in this range

So it depends what you actually want this lens to do?

 

[a1ex2001]

Excuse my french but Bo!!ocks, why not, the canon 17-40mm f4 a great lens, primarily for landscapes, its the cheaper alternative to the 16-35mm f2.8 MKII, so the only question is, would you be hand holding camera + lens in a lot of low light conditions, and hence the extra f-stop comes in handy, if not then why not the 17-40mm f4

In that range of lenses

you have the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 Non IS very good lens and at a very good price.
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 IS not that great optically for some reason.
Canon's 15-85mm f3.4 -5.6 IS (EF-S) this lens has got a load of rave reviews, probably helped by its IS system and also has the extra range.
Canon's 17-55mm f2.8 IS probably the lens EF-S lens you could put on your cropped body as a general purpose lens, but you're paying the extra $$ so perhaps look for a 2nd hand one.

Sigma's offerings fall a bit short (image quality) in this range

So it depends what you actually want this lens to do?

Totally agree with your opening statement the 17-40 can be a great choice on a crop especially if full frame is on the op's future agenda.

Can't agree with some of yor other comments the tamron vc is a really good lens not quite as sharp as the non vc but still very decent and with a top notch vc system. It is a classic case of internet exaggeration that has labelled it crap which is good if you want to pick one up second hand!

Also the latest sigma with os has reviewed very well and would probably be the go to lens in this range if it wasn't a) pricey and b) labelled as rubish on the internet because it's predecessor was only ok.

 

[woof woof]

Excuse my french but Bo!!ocks,

Oh dear...

The 17-40mm f4 was designed as a full frame wide angle lens, that's not bo!!ocks, it's a simple fact :bonk:

The quality f2.8 lenses in the 17-50mm range from Canon, Tamron and Sigma were specifically designed for APS-C cameras and offer both a wider focal range and a wider aperture.

If you think that's all bo!!ocks maybe you need to rush off and wash your head in some nice warm soapy water?

Please excuse my humour

 

[woof woof]

Totally agree with your opening statement the 17-40 can be a great choice on a crop especially if full frame is on the op's future agenda.

But why pick an aging wide angle lens for use as a "standard" zoom on APS-C when there are newer APS-C lenses with both a wider focal range and wider aperture? It's madness IMVHO and would only make sense to me personally if I had two cameras, one APS-C and one "FF"* or if I intended to buy a "FF" camera pretty soon. If neither of those possibilities is going to happen PDQ I personally see no reason to buy a slow f4 17-40mm over a f2.8 17-50mm but to each his own

*In my case I had a 20-35mm for use on FF and APS-C, but my default "standard" zoom for my APS-C was a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 - a cracking lens that the 17-40mm just can't match IMVHO (and yes, I did try one.)

 

[pete.rush]

The 17-40mm f4 was designed as a full frame wide angle lens, that's not bo!!ocks, it's a simple fact :bonk:

I've got soap and water in my ears now

But that's why it may have advantages because of the cropped sensor, (field of view crop factor) No Vignetting on a cropped, distortion less noticeable and equivalent to a 27.2-64mm lens.

The Tamron is a great lens, especially the Non IS version and I'm not knocking it, performance wise, its nearly as good as the canon 17-55mm f2.8 for nearly 1/2 the price, just keeping the OP options open to other lenses, I'm just saying that because it designed for a full frame sensor, doesn't mean that it won't work on a crop.

 

[mata.morrison]

Do you not want anything longer? I've got almost identical set of lenses, but also have the good old non-IS 70-200L f4 + a 1.4x extender for long work.

As said I already have a 55-250is that I intend to keep... but you have made me think a bit!

Thanks all for your responses so far, it's always good getting other peoples opinions of different gear good or bad, for me it really makes me think about my decisions! So I think the 17-40 is out mainly for the price compared to the Tamron, it may be a good lens but I do want to try and get the best bang for buck with out too much compromise on the glass. However as Jon mentioned the 70-200 f4, I have always pondered getting one of these and I didnt think of putting it in the mix untill now. So definitly the 17-50 2.8 is in and the 18-55is is out. Scrap the 30 1.4 for just now and keep the 50 1.8 and get used to it and possibly the 55-250is out and the 70-200 f4 in?

Now then what would I gain with the 70-200 over the 55-250? Much better IQ I'm guessing along with faster throughout the range. I would lose the IS, is this a deal breaker... I'm not sure and I would lose the far end 50mm, however with better IQ I could crop? :shrug:

That would give me a line up of the following:

10-20mm f4
17-50mm f2.8
50mm f1.8
70-200mm f4

Now to get the cash sorted which most of should be here by the end of the week and possibly get the Tamron in the next few days and the if I don't change my mind again the 70-200 in the next few weeks.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Oh dear...

The 17-40mm f4 was designed as a full frame wide angle lens, that's not bo!!ocks, it's a simple fact :bonk:

The quality f2.8 lenses in the 17-50mm range from Canon, Tamron and Sigma were specifically designed for APS-C cameras and offer both a wider focal range and a wider aperture.

If you think that's all bo!!ocks maybe you need to rush off and wash your head in some nice warm soapy water?

Please excuse my humour

Oh dear... The 17-40 works a lot better on crop and was designed with 10D and 1D in mind before there was EF-S mount or FF digital. It's pretty dated for FF, but really sharp on crop from left to right, and built a lot better than Tamron.

So there you go - f/2.8 vs better build and OEM - your choice

 

[a1ex2001]

But why pick an aging wide angle lens for use as a "standard" zoom on APS-C when there are newer APS-C lenses with both a wider focal range and wider aperture? It's madness IMVHO and would only make sense to me personally if I had two cameras, one APS-C and one "FF"* or if I intended to buy a "FF" camera pretty soon. If neither of those possibilities is going to happen PDQ I personally see no reason to buy a slow f4 17-40mm over a f2.8 17-50mm but to each his own

*In my case I had a 20-35mm for use on FF and APS-C, but my default "standard" zoom for my APS-C was a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 - a cracking lens that the 17-40mm just can't match IMVHO (and yes, I did try one.)

I don't disagree with alot of your points but this harping on about being and old full frame compatible lens is just ridiculous, would you say the same if the op was asking about a 70-200mm f4 or a nifty fifty both old designs for full frame?

The age of a good lens design and the sensor size it was designed for is irrelevant. The tamron 28-75mm was designed as a cheap full frame walk about but us loads better on a crop as it only uses the sweet spot so is much sharper and doesn't vignette.

 

[mata.morrison]

Well I have definitely decided against the 17-40L, not for the fact that's its an 'old design' or 'not for FF' but really the cost/value factor. I know its probably a lot better than the 17-50 but that is half the price and give me more cash for another lens which I now have to decide on.

The lens in question is going to be a telephoto, I like the Canon 70-200 F4 as it's cheap and good quality however I have just come across the Sigma 70-200 2.8 which is very appealing as its roughly the same/cheaper but also has 2.8 which is good. Now to fund this I will be moving on the 55-250is which should nearly cover the gap in funds nicely

Anyone have any experience with this lens?

 

[andyred]

Not had any experience with the Sigma lens, but I've had the Canon 70-200 F4 and was very happy with it, a very nice lens and a big step up from your 55-250IS, although you do loose some wide end and IS...

But, you say you're having to sell the 18-55, 50mm and 55-250IS to help fund a 70-200 - thats fine, but will leave you with nothing from your sigma 10-20mm to 70-200mm, which is a big gap in focal range. I think you need to think about what you are after - focal range wise, otherwise you could end up struggling.

And don't forget, what suits 1 person, won't suit another - my advice is to decide what you want, then if possible, try one out and see what you think about it...

 

[mata.morrison]

Not had any experience with the Sigma lens, but I've had the Canon 70-200 F4 and was very happy with it, a very nice lens and a big step up from your 55-250IS, although you do loose some wide end and IS...

But, you say you're having to sell the 18-55, 50mm and 55-250IS to help fund a 70-200 - thats fine, but will leave you with nothing from your sigma 10-20mm to 70-200mm, which is a big gap in focal range. I think you need to think about what you are after - focal range wise, otherwise you could end up struggling.

And don't forget, what suits 1 person, won't suit another - my advice is to decide what you want, then if possible, try one out and see what you think about it...

Thanks for the reply, yes it does sound like a great lens, its now making my mind up between F4 and 2.8 :bang: haha. Yes correct I am selling the 18-55 and 50 1.8 however I will be buying two lenses from the funds and extra cash I have just now. I will be getting the Tamron 17-50 2.8 to cover the kit lens, so I am sorted for that range, it's just the telephoto end I'm trying to sort now

 

[mata.morrison]

Took delivery of my 17-50 2.8 last week and needless to say I am really chuffed, very sharp at 2.8 compared to the 18-55 wide open. Only thing I find now is getting focus correct at 2.8, as I didn't use my 50 often its a whole new learning curve!

As for the second lens, I have been dithering with a decision but definitely leaning to the 30 1.4 so just waiting for one to come up in the classifieds