Replacing 17-50 2.8 Tamron with 24-70 L or 24-105 L Canon

[mangkukhayun]

Hi,

I have owned a tammy 17-50 2.8 which is a very good lens IMHO. I found it to be a bit on the warm side (not a bad thing for me).

Lately I have been reading about 24-70 and the 24-105 IS A LOT!! It kinda crave me to get a replacement for my tammy..:o

My question is, is it worth it to sell this tammy and get one of those gems, or should I keep this one monster?

I shoot mostly landscape, potraits, and sometimes close-up..

[gasrocks]

How's the length of the 17-50? If it is good seems like the efs 17-55 IS might be a logical step up.

[Mr. Clean]

The 24mm on the wide end might not be wide enough for you for landscape shots. It's not quite enough for me...

[ed rader]

The 24mm on the wide end might not be wide enough for you for landscape shots. It's not quite enough for me...

he has the 10-22. if the lens in question is a walkaround and he does portraits i'd go for the 24-70L.

ed rader

[mangkukhayun]

The 24mm on the wide end might not be wide enough for you for landscape shots. It's not quite enough for me...

Yeah, you are right, the 24mm is not wide enough considering i have a crop factor of 1.5x of the 350D. But I have got the 10-22, which i consider a very good super WA zoom, hence my toy for landscape.

If it ever happens for me to get one of the canon's, it will be my ultimate walk-around lens. Do you guys think 24mm is wide enough for walkaround? I am used to get down to 17mm with my tammy.

[ed rader]

Yeah, you are right, the 24mm is not wide enough considering i have a crop factor of 1.5x of the 350D. But I have got the 10-22, which i consider a very good super WA zoom, hence my toy for landscape.

If it ever happens for me to get one of the canon's, it will be my ultimate walk-around lens. Do you guys think 24mm is wide enough for walkaround? I am used to get down to 17mm with my tammy.

i think 24mm is wide enough for walkaround usually. when it's not i use the 17-40L.

ed rader

[Mr. Clean]

he has the 10-22. if the lens in question is a walkaround and he does portraits i'd go for the 24-70L.

ed rader
Good point...I didn't even look at the sig. In that case then I agree, the 24-70 would be the better option of the two. But that opinion is hotly contested too!

[ed rader]

Good point...I didn't even look at the sig. In that case then I agree, the 24-70 would be the better option of the two. But that opinion is hotly contested too!


yeah that's why i usually try to avoid "what should i buy" threads .... they never want to buy what i think they should :D !

ed rader

[mangkukhayun]

This is an example of a picture taken with my 17-50 tamron. Would be nice if someone can compare with the ones taken with 24-70L.

http://static.flickr.com/79/252211659_6d07da5979_o.jpg

[ed rader]

This is an example of a picture taken with my 17-50 tamron. Would be nice if someone can compare with the ones taken with 24-70L.

http://static.flickr.com/79/252211659_6d07da5979_o.jpg


send me a ticket and i'm your man ... have 24-70L. will travel :D.

ed rader

[dave_bass5]

I have the 17-50 f/2.8 and a 24-105L.
I find that having both gives me a good range and i normally only need to take these two lens's out with me. i like to shoot mainly in the 40mm-105mm range but its nice to be able to go wider when i need it. i have never needed wider than 17mm and dont really go that wide anyway. I aslo try and keep away from too much overlap in my FL so each lens has its uses.
Just my thoughts

[Max Err]

for a walkaround 24-70 is too big and heavy in my opinion, its great for work but is redundant for fun, i think your tammy is the walkaround lens.

[Master-9]

My vote is for the 24-70L, I love this lens

[ronmayhew]

If you want something in the range of the 24-70L, then my vote is for the 28-75 Tamron! Keep the 17-50 T and you'll have two great lenses with the range of FL's you need.