Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8, 17-50mm F/2.8 or Canon 17-40 F/4L??

Currently I own the 28-75mm. I feel I need something in my bag just a little wider. I was considering the Tamron 17-50 F/2.8, or possibly the Canon 17-40 F/4L. I was considering the Tamron over the Canon because of the F/2.8 over the F/4 (for indoor) and because of the price difference.
If you suggest that I purchase either the 17-50 or the 17-40, with my lens line up should I keep the 28-75 or sell?
Lens line up: Canon 50mm F/1.8, Canon 70-200mm F/2.8, Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 and I am adding the 85mm F/1.8.
TIA.

Having owned both, I'd trade out the 28-75 for the 17-50mm. It focuses a little faster, was sharper at f2.8 in my case, and the range is much more versatile. 28mm on APS-C means you have no wide angle and you already have 70mm f2.8 covered with your telephoto. Owning both 17-50 and 28-75 would be too much overlap.

Alternately, you could keep the 28-75 for mid range and purchase a dedicated wide angle like a Tokina 11-16mm, Sigma 10-20, etc.

I asked myself the same question a little while back. I was going back and forth about a tammy 17-50 because I liked the 17 end, but I wanted a little more reach than 50....so I picked up a tammy 10-24 and 28-75.

caroleigh wrote in post #15467447
Currently I own the 28-75mm. I feel I need something in my bag just a little wider. I was considering the Tamron 17-50 F/2.8, or possibly the Canon 17-40 F/4L. I was considering the Tamron over the Canon because of the F/2.8 over the F/4 (for indoor) and because of the price difference.
If you suggest that I purchase either the 17-50 or the 17-40, with my lens line up should I keep the 28-75 or sell?
Lens line up: Canon 50mm F/1.8, Canon 70-200mm F/2.8, Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 and I am adding the 85mm F/1.8.
TIA.

I sold my 17-40L after trying the Tamron 17-50 2.8.

I didn't use the 28-75 a whole lot after I got the 17-50. Although when I eventually went FF it was nice to have it at times. If you have a great copy and may one day go FF and don't expect to right away jump at any sort of 24-70 II for 24-70 II or even Tamron 24-70 VC then maybe may as well keep the 28-75 (unless you need the money now for other things). Otherwise sell it.

Thank you for the replies. Looks like I will be trading out my 28-75 for the 17-50. I think it just makes the most sense. I just got the 7D so I don't see that I am going FF any time soon.

I bought the 17-50 2.8 non VC and couldn't be happier! (other than wanting a million more lenses for different focal lengths!) Mine is tack sharp and works well with mostly everything I do which is landscapes and a little bit of portraiture. Got it from amazon with a 6 year warranty! But I would trust to buy used on these forums because every transaction I've had has gone smooth!

May I ask, do you think a trade of my 28-75mm for a 17-50 vc, plus $75 on my end is a fair trade?

caroleigh wrote in post #15471338
May I ask, do you think a trade of my 28-75mm for a 17-50 vc, plus $75 on my end is a fair trade?

Yeah, certainly, although I should note that most of us were talking about the 17-50 NON-VC.

I've never tried the VC. Some people say it is definitely softer than the non-VC although some claim it's not that big of a deal. I don't know. Something to look into more though.

Thank you for that information. I put out a trade on my local CL, I didn't specify but was thinking the non vc and he offered the VC version. I'll do some research into that. I definitely don't want to end up with anything softer. I suppose I assumed it would be just as sharp without even researching it!

wombatHorror wrote in post #15471418
Yeah, certainly, although I should note that most of us were talking about the 17-50 NON-VC.

I've never tried the VC. Some people say it is definitely softer than the non-VC although some claim it's not that big of a deal. I don't know. Something to look into more though.