24-70 or 17-50?

Hey POTN!

So, I've been holding out between a Canon 50mm f/1.8 and a Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 for the past two and a half years. Frankly, getting real sick of it.

I'm looking at various Canon-produced and off-brand lenses. I'm looking for a lens that shoots across the board when it comes to focal length (wideish angle to 70, since my tele starts at 70). I shoot anything from portraits to landscapes, and I film occasionally enough to the point whereas I'd like a stable image.

So, taking all three of these things into account, which should I get? Which band? What'll get me the best bang for my buck? My budget is whatever the Canon 24-70's (the mark 1) price is. I've done some research, but I'm still really lost.

One more thing to add: Low-light performance is a big one, without having to pump the ISO past 6400. Another reason why I'm leaning more toward a 17 is because of this—it's easier to keep a stable image wide. This will be for use in a city environment (i.e. New York). I'm mainly out at night, mainly due to my sleeping schedule.

Something that can get me similar results to this would be great:

1. http://www.flickr.com/​photos/evad310/8227435​316/ (yes I realize that it's HDR)
2.

The 17-50 is wider, great IQ, has IS. I would say go with 17-50. Oh and similar focal length on a crop body.

What brand? Sigma offers them, as so does Tamron. Which one? WAT DO?

another vote for 17-50.

Which one depends on your budget....

Canon 17-55 > Sigma 17-50 OS > Tamron 17-50 non-VC.

kin2son wrote in post #15306208
another vote for 17-50.

Which one depends on your budget....

Canon 17-55 > Sigma 17-50 OS > Tamron 17-50 non-VC.

+1 for kin2son, but price also goes with it.


In that range I have owned, and felt the tamron 17-50 non vc was the best bang for the buck. For what I shoot, i ended up selling it because it was to short for me, the canon 15-85 works better for me, also 2x the price.

quadwing wrote in post #15303350
Hey POTN!

So, I've been holding out between a Canon 50mm f/1.8 and a Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 for the past two and a half years. Frankly, getting real sick of it.

tamron 17-50 2.8 non-VC on your aps-c body

24mm isn't that wide and the tamron performs super well, the 24-70 I won't do any better at all and you lose 17-24mm which might be a big deal.

tamron 17-50 non-vc is one the great third party lenses, i dumped my 17-40L after I got it

canon 15-85 IS is worth a look if you really want wide focal range in one lens

wombatHorror wrote in post #15306335
tamron 17-50 2.8 non-VC on your aps-c body

24mm isn't that wide and the tamron performs super well, the 24-70 I won't do any better at all and you lose 17-24mm which might be a big deal.

tamron 17-50 non-vc is one the great third party lenses, i dumped my 17-40L after I got it

canon 15-85 IS is worth a look if you really want wide focal range in one lens

I'm not really sure what losing 17-24 entails. Honestly, not having had much experience with wide-angle lenses, I can't really judge how much of a loss that would be on a realistic level. I guess, if I can get a full shot of my face and shoulders while holding the camera out and arm's length, that's what I'd be happy with. I've been (seriously) looking at the Tamron 17-50 for a few years now though, I'm just not sure if I should pull the trigger. I live up in the hills right now (I lived in NY earlier this year), so I gotta find a place which sells the lens to try it out. I fancy dreamy-esque photography, but I'd also on occasion be doing star photography. I don't know.

Budget-wise, up to $700 is okay. I go on and off with my photography. Sometimes I really enjoy it, other times I get bored and dull with it, so I'm hoping a new lens will open me up to it again.

I've also been looking into the 17-40 as well. I heard it's really, really sharp, so I might get it. Does anyone know how low-light performance on a T1i would be at night? I don't mind pumping ISO too much, I just don't want to go past 6400.

Tamron non vc is best bang for the buck, sharpest wide open, and doesn't have a yellow color tint like the Sigma. The Canon is the best but also $6-700 more expensive.

You'd be losing quite a bit on the wide end going with a 24mm vs. a 17mm

Here's a picture showing the difference between a few common focal lengths

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=990858

If you have enough for a 24-70 L, I would normally suggest the Canon 17-55, but, and I am assuming your tamron isn't the VC USD model, I would get the Sigma 17-50 and upgrade your tamron the the VC model.

FEChariot wrote in post #15307000
If you have enough for a 24-70 L, I would normally suggest the Canon 17-55, but, and I am assuming your tamron isn't the VC USD model, I would get the Sigma 17-50 and upgrade your tamron the the VC model.

Yeah, it's not. The lens was 200ish when I got it. It's not a terrible lens, but it's definitely not great by any means. It gets the job done. Barely.

Why the Sigma 17-50?

Also, what about the 17-40L? Would I really be losing anything with it being f/4 or not really?

quadwing wrote in post #15307838
Why the Sigma 17-50?

Also, what about the 17-40L? Would I really be losing anything with it being f/4 or not really?

Because the Sigma is a good lens

17-40 fails pretty much on all levels compared to the Sigma. Less range, slower and no IS (OS).

Sure it has slightly better build and weather sealing when used with a filter, but the body you are using isn't so that's absolutely no point.

17-40 is designed for ff as an UWA. It's an OK lens on ff (I have one), but definitely not the best choice for crop as a general zoom.

Well another quality I guess I'm looking for (subconsciously of course) is build quality. That feeling of holding a solid lens would take the cake for me, and I'm not really too sure how the Sigma would handle lens flaring.

Your first post mentions low low capability as an important factor, so F4 will obviously limit that.

I borrow a 17-40L and shoot it on my t3i occasionally. Overall I'm happy with the results, however I typically use it during daylight hours and outdoors, so the f4 isn't such an issue for my use. My friend has offered it to me for $450, provided I loan to him a couple times a year if he needs it for a job. It's an appealing offer, however I have been weighing the benefits against a Sigma 17-50 OS, which is in the same ballpark pricewise (slightly more).

Sigma benefits (to me) in order of importance:
f2.8
greater reach (50mm vs 40mm)
stabilized

17-40 L benefits, by importance:
FF compatible (may grab a 5d to mess around with)
weather sealed
slightly cheaper
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
red ring