What lens?

I have a budget of £350-£400 to spend on a lens, i wish to use for street photography.
Can anyone give me some idea which lens to look for?
Thanks.

tamron 17-50 is what I mainly use, I'm in the US, so I'm not sure about the price, but I think it'll fit in your budget.

Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 also fits the budget. It's my most used walk around lens. Will also go with a full frame camera in case you consider to ever buy one.

P.

There may be some listed in this thread from our UK 'urban guru' Condyk

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=155169

Cheers Kev ... personally, I find a tad wider better than a tad longer, tho' it depends if your focus is mainly people or buildings type stuff. The 24-105mm IS L is great for people and the 17-40mm L is great for buildings/general. I had both and now use the widey. TW's suggestion is a good one as you get a bit more on the long end and speed is always good. Another 'radical' option is a 35mm prime. I have often used my Zeiss 35mm 2.4 just for a change and it really gives a different feel to the shots and helps you focus on your position re. subject and composition. Hard to beat a flexible, decent quality zoom tho. I'd probably go for the Tamron 17-50mm or a SH 17-40mm L with your budget.

400 quid? That's about enough for a Cano ef 17-40 f/4 L. Can't do much better than that, and there's no way that Tamron stacks up

How do you know? You tried them both?

Thanks guys. Ok, the price difference between the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L @ £503 and the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 @ £299 is alot. So is the L lens worth spending the £203.
The prices have come from Warehouse Express.

So if anyone can convince me to buy the canon, feel free to do so............ Up to now i'm going for Tamron.

"Look into my eyes. Look into my eyes. The eyes. The eyes. Not around the eyes. Don't look around my eyes. Look into my eyes... You're under. - You will buy a very expensive 'L' lens you don't really need.... "

I really enjoy my 17-40mm and the IQ and handling is excellent, but if I was spending £500+ I would go for the Tamron. It isn't going to be better and it doesn't have USM which is a pain, but to me it just seems to represent better value. BUT if you want an L well you have to pay the premium price.

condyk, What is USM?

Vini wrote in post #2120006
condyk, What is USM?

See near bottom of this page

Vini wrote in post #2119901
So is the L lens worth spending the £203.
The prices have come from Warehouse Express.

Also don't forget that:
- The Tamron 17-50 is not suited for full frame, in case you ever want that
- The Tamron is f/2.8 which is a stop faster. Even if IS can compensate for 2-3 stops, there is no alternative for a real fast lens.

P.

I have both the Tamron and the Canon, they are both great lenses.
"400 quid? That's about enough for a Cano ef 17-40 f/4 L. Can't do much better than that, and there's no way that Tamron stacks up" Sorry Alec but unless you have both these lenses I think you are sadly mis-informed. My Tamron is sharper at F4 than the Canon and holds its own in all other areas. The lenses have different applications for me but both are tack sharp lenses and a joy to use, although the Tamron is not so great at low light focussing.
Ricky

I started out in life with Tamrons. Had the 28-80 and the 70-300. At the time, when I would view images at 100%, without fail there was some blur. At some point I got it into my head to pick up the Canon ef 28-105. Wow. I was blown away--suddenly images taken with the same settings (the aperture range is the same on both lenses) were coming out sharper and with even better colors. Then 3 weeks ago I went out and bought the 17-40 L, and I was blown away again. So you can see, I've experienced some rather lackluster results from Tamron. Oddly though, my sharpest lens is the Canon 50mm f/1.8. It's not even a USM lens, and weighs in at a mere $75. But the quality is unmistakable. So sometimes you get what you pay for, sometimes you don't.