Dilemma: 17-55 or 17-50 + tokina 11-16

I have just bought a 40D and now i'm trying to decide between these lenses:

The 17-55 f2.8 IS (and maybe the tokina 11-16 next year)

OR

Tamron 17-50 + Tokina 11-16 now (when it becomes available)

I don't like the AF sound of the tamron (saw it on a youtube video), but does it bother you while shooting?
Which option would you choose and why?
At this moment i already have the 55-250IS and the tokina 10-17 fisheye. I'm shooting all kinds of stuff (museums, portrets, landscapes, animals,...) not really 1 main preference.
thank you

It's hard to beat the versatility of a two lens set up and really it's a reason people go into SLR's. The 17-55 is an awesome lens and the other two are no slouches either. If you find yourself shooting wide fairly often, I'd opt for the 11-16,17-50 combo. If not, the 17-55 is arguably the best lens you can buy for your 40D.

sigual wrote in post #5870974
I have just bought a 40D and now i'm trying to decide between these lenses:

The 17-55 f2.8 IS (and maybe the tokina 11-16 next year)

OR

Tamron 17-50 + Tokina 11-16 now (when it becomes available)

I don't like the AF sound of the tamron (saw it on a youtube video), but does it bother you while shooting?
Which option would you choose and why?
At this moment i already have the 55-250IS and the tokina 10-17 fisheye. I'm shooting all kinds of stuff (museums, portrets, landscapes, animals,...) not really 1 main preference.
thank you

The AF on the Tamron is audible but it never bothered me.
You tend to forget about it after a while.

On a positive note it has the reassuring effect of telling you the AF is working (via the sound)(even though you can see the red focus point light up in the viewfinder I kind like to hear the sound that the af motor is spinning).

Whenever I put on the 85 1.8 I can't help but double check that the af switch is on af and not manual focus. It is so quite.

In the end I'd get the Tamron+Tokina now.
Tough to beat these two.

The Canon 17-55 2.8IS is without a doubt one of the greatest lenses for the 1.6x bodies. I do believe however that it is not nearly 3 times as good as the Tamron in order to justify the it's price (which is nearly 3 times the price of the Tamron).

Hmm it's hard because I will be using a standard zoomlens a lot more than an ultrawide lens (some wide shots i can already cover with my fisheye). I'm buying the Tokina anyway, it just has to wait a few more months IF i would choose the 17-55. Maybe that wasn't totally clear in my question.

I really like the IS on my 55-250IS and really don't like the noise the tamron is making. I think it would bother me, because i'm already annoyed by the noise the nifty fifty is making. I just found this video of were the AF noise of those 2 are shown and the tamron is even louder. (http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=Dl6NY4tFcG0)

But that would't justify the extra cost for the 17-55 according to you? I know, it's a lot more expensive.

decicions decicions, i'm sorry

I purchased the 17-55 IS after owning the Tamron 17-50 for a while, and sent the 17-55 back. It just wasn't worth the extra cost in my opinion. Optics were no better (and actually, a slight edge to the Tamron), and the build felt like crap for a $1000 lens.

sigual wrote in post #5871160
Hmm it's hard because I will be using a standard zoomlens a lot more than an ultrawide lens (some wide shots i can already cover with my fisheye). I'm buying the Tokina anyway, it just has to wait a few more months IF i would choose the 17-55. Maybe that wasn't totally clear in my question.

I really like the IS on my 55-250IS and really don't like the noise the tamron is making. I think it would bother me, because i'm already annoyed by the noise the nifty fifty is making. I just found this video of were the AF noise of those 2 are shown and the tamron is even louder. (http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=Dl6NY4tFcG0)

But that would't justify the extra cost for the 17-55 according to you? I know, it's a lot more expensive.

decicions decicions, i'm sorry

Yes the noise is a bit loud (perhaps as you said even louder than the fifty).

I don't think the noise would justify the price.

I'd rather spend the extra money on something else.

My advice is to get the Tamron and instead of getting the additional Tokina lens invest in lighting. Get a Sunpak 383 (or Nikon SB28, Vivitar 285), a light stand+umbrella, and a sync cable (you can get a strobist kit from Mpex.com for $200 http://www.mpex.com/pa​ge.htm?PG=Strobist%20K​its).

Working with off camera light will give you a big boost in enjoying your camera more and making really awesome pics. This will really make portraits come to life.


For landscapes the Tamron is quite fine and has a really nice focal range.

The value of IS is very subjective. For me it was much desired and I think worth the extra $500. For others not as much.

That being said, I would hate to have to decide. I like the wide end of things and I would hate to have to give up my 10-22, even though I use my 17-55 much more often.

sigual wrote in post #5871160
Hmm it's hard because I will be using a standard zoomlens a lot more than an ultrawide lens (some wide shots i can already cover with my fisheye). I'm buying the Tokina anyway, it just has to wait a few more months IF i would choose the 17-55. Maybe that wasn't totally clear in my question.

I really like the IS on my 55-250IS and really don't like the noise the tamron is making. I think it would bother me, because i'm already annoyed by the noise the nifty fifty is making. I just found this video of were the AF noise of those 2 are shown and the tamron is even louder. (http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=Dl6NY4tFcG0)

But that would't justify the extra cost for the 17-55 according to you? I know, it's a lot more expensive.

decicions decicions, i'm sorry

You said a normal zoom is more important and you dont shoot much UWA and when you have to you have your fisheye. If that's the case, and your funds allow, get the 17-55 IS. You get the quiet focus and IS.