Get rid of 18-200 and 50mm for 17-50?

Wanting some others input on this. I have 3 lenses currently.
Canon 18-200 3.5-5.6
Canon 50mm 1.8
Tamron VC 70-300 4-5.6

I really don't use the canon 18-200 anymore since I bought my tamron 70-300. The only time I do use it is when I want the wide angle. Other than that I always use my 50mm 1.8 for portraits and 70-300 for nature. I know it does not have IS/VC, but at that short of a focal distance I do not see it being that important. If there are any other lenses in the same focal length range and same price that you feel are better, please let me know!

Would it be worth it to get rid of the 50mm 1.8 and the 18-200 so that I can buy the Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD SP?

Just found the tamron 28-75 2.8. That is also another option.

I'd lose the 18-200 but keep the 50 1.8 if it were me. I use the 50 for single person portraits all the time and really like it. I have the 17-50 non VC and really like it, especially when the 50 isn't wide enough.
The 28-75 is good, but the 17-50 is better for sure (have both)

Okay. Now I do see that there is a VC version of the 17-50. Do you feel that it is ok without the VC since it is not a super long focal length?

Thank you very much for your input!

For the money you get out of 50 1.8, its a lot better to keep it IMO.

I have no experience with the tamron 17 - 50 but I have heard the non VC version is sharper.

I am also seeing that Canon has a 17-55 2.8 IS... but it is quite a bit more money at over 1,000 bucks. ... It does however have a USM focusing motor.

I find the 18-200 a fine walkaround lens. It is quite sharp, a bit warm in its renditions and its only real problem is some CA, which is easily removed in post.

I will keep mine for as long as I have my 60D. Last year I spent 7 weeks in the Greek islands and sure as hell I didn't lug around the 70-200 MkII. I'd hate it if it got stolen too.

Why do you want to get rid of it?

I recently purchased a white seamless background setup and plan on doing some paid work. I thought that I should probably look into getting something better before venturing into paid stuff. I also thought that a wider angle with a wide aperture would be useful. I would really like to get an L lens, but really my budget just won't allow for it right now.

My hopes for the Tamron have kind of been shot down. I just realized it is not really made to work with a full frame camera. So when I do eventually upgrade I would need to sell it.

Would I maybe be better off getting rid of my 50 1.8 and getting the 50 1.4? Mainly for the focus? Not sure it would seem very good to have someone paying for pictures and im standing there with the loudest focusing lens

If you get the Tamron, you probably won't use the 50mm anymore, based on my experience. It's not worth a ton, but selling it for $80 is better than using it as a paperweight (and it's not even heavy enough to hold much paper down!).

I think since you already have a long telephoto it makes more sense to have an upgraded standard zoom vs a long superzoom. I had the 55-250 and 17-50 at one point and they'd make a great combo, so I am sure the 70-300 and 17-50 would be just as nice. 18-200 has lots of CA at the wider angles, so even though it is pretty sharp it doesn't have excellent quality like higher end short zooms.

Personally, I'd just get a non-VC as they are sharper at f2.8 and you don't need IS as often at wider angles. You may also consider the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 if you are willing to trade a little bit of aperture for filling in your zoom range all the way to 70mm.

tkbscl,
You said that I should just get rid of the 50 and get the non-vc tamron. Do you think I should also get rid of my 18-200? Or would it be worth keeping for any reason. As is, the only time is use it is for 18-(anything under 50). Then i switch to my 50 and/or tamron 70-300. Or maybe just keep it for an all in 1 walkaround lens?

I meant get rid of the 18-200 since you'll have it covered with 17-50 and 70-300. Selling the 50 is optional. It's not going to be worth less in a year, so you could sit on it and see if you use it at all, but the Tamron is quite capable of portraits and low light shooting at 50mm f2.8. Especially with a 60D that does so well at high ISO.

tkbslc wrote in post #15686033
I meant get rid of the 18-200 since you'll have it covered with 17-50 and 70-300. Selling the 50 is optional. It's not going to be worth less in a year, so you could sit on it and see if you use it at all, but the Tamron is quite capable of portraits and low light shooting at 50mm f2.8. Especially with a 60D that does so well at high ISO.

Oh ok. So I know the 17-50 would be really good for indoor pictures with space limitations, but would something like a 50mm 1.4 be better for portraits outside?

I agree: sell the 18-200 and 50/1.8 and buy that Tamron 17-50.

The 18-200 isn't sharp enough to be my first choice. It would be fine if the primary user is a person who wants a super zoom point and shoot, but, aside from the focal length and how close it can focus, I don't care for it.

I don't like a 50mm lens as my only fast prime for an APS-C sensor. For what I do, it's too long and swapping back and forth between it and a standard zoom usually means it stays in the bag.

The 17-50 would become your standard zoom and your main walk around lens. Pair it with the 70-300 you already like and your set with a good two lens combo.

Okay. Thank you to everyone for your input!

I think I will end up going with the tamron 2 lens combo . My only 2 final questions are:

1. Is the AF motor really bad and loud? In some videos it seems horribly loud but that could just be the mic of the camera picking it up all to well . My main concern is using it for a paid shoot and not being very presentable by having an overly loud focus motor.

2. My only other concern is the fact it is not a good lens (wont really work) on full frame cameras. If I do choose to go full frame, do these Tamron lenses hold their value fairly well?

It's not louder than the 50mm f1.8.

Nobody can predict future value. If you are worried about resale, buy them used and then they will have already depreciated mostly.