Sacrifice 18-27mm on the short end, or 50-70mm on the long end?

Well, I have narrowed my next lens purchase to the Tamron 17-50mm and the Tamron 28-75mm. I did some statistical analysis on what focal lengths I use on my current kit lens. I basically logged every shot I took for a year to see how much I use a focal length.

I take a lot pictures of landscapes because of my work, probably half of all the pictures I take. When taking work photos, I use 18-27mm 40% of the time. I use 51-55mm 19% of the time.

The other half of the time I am taking pictures of the family. I use 18-27mm 30% of the time and 51-55mm 7% of the time.

I seems apparent to me that the choice to replace the kit lens should probably be the 17-50. But, the 19% of my shots at work that are in the 51-55mm bothers me a little. I was using 55mm for nearly all of those shots, and possibly, I may have needed something a little longer. For personal use, the stats definitely favor the 17-50, but my son starts basketball season here in a few weeks, and I think 75mm would shoot that really well.

I can only afford to purchase one lens at the moment. F/2.8 is a must for me. I am pretty set on either of the Tamrons. What does anyone think about my dilema? Should I go for the 17-50 and leave a gap between 50-70mm, then use my Sigma 70-200 for basketball? Or, go for the 28-75mm and adapt to not having 18-27mm, or use my kit lens in the circumstances that I do need 18-27mm?

Use the 70-200 for the games. Unless if you sit right beneath the basket, the range would suit games a lot better. And if you do sit down there, you can always use the 17-50 for full body shots as they come up for the dunk. There should be relatively few times when you would say "doh, 50 is too short and 70 is too long!" as compared to saying "doh, 28 is not wide enough!" And while the kit is decent, it certainly isn't as sharp as the Tamron.

there's also the sigma 24-70/2.8, which sort of rivals the tamron. just slightly wider...what would your percentages look like with this lens?

mxwphoto wrote in post #2264756
Use the 70-200 for the games. Unless if you sit right beneath the basket, the range would suit games a lot better. And if you do sit down there, you can always use the 17-50 for full body shots as they come up for the dunk. There should be relatively few times when you would say "doh, 50 is too short and 70 is too long!" as compared to saying "doh, 28 is not wide enough!" And while the kit is decent, it certainly isn't as sharp as the Tamron.

I would agree with this. You are more likely to feel the lack of a wide angle option than miss the gap.

Good analysis btw on the most used focal length. Most of us went with gut feel - you have a much better system

The key to your problem is to go back to the pics and evaluate:
- how many of the 51-55 can be managed with the two options of a. 50mm and a crop or b.70mm and step back.
- how many of the 18-24/28 can be solved by stepping back

I have a Canon 24mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.8, they're the perfect combo for me.

Ultimately two lenses would be best, a 17-50 and a 70-200 or 300 for telephoto stuff.

If one lens is all you want, I'd go for the Sigma 17-70 and kill two birds with one stone.

Between the two lenses you mentioned, I'd go 17-50 in a heartbeat.

For my 20D, I have a set of Canon L zooms - 16-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, and 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I find this a nearly perfect set of lenses for all-round use. My 24-70 stays on the camera about half the time I am out with it. It is an extremely versatile lens for the APS-C format.

Using this concept, but trying to keep pricing down, I would suggest you either consider the 17-50 for now and fill in with a 24-70 in the future or look at getting a 24-70 f/2.8 for now and use the "kit" lens for the wider stuff until you can get the 17-50 as well.

When building up a set of lenses, it is very wise to make sure that all of the lenses in the set have similar controls. That means focus ring in front of zoom ring (or the reverse) for all, zoom and focus rings all turn the same way to do the same thing, etc.

"Wider is better, Iller is deffer
Im trying to count zeros and hoes like Hugh Hefner"

lol ok no more rap quotables

i used to have the 28-75, very nice lens but wasnt wide enough. id say the tamron 17-50 would be a goood choice.

50-70 of course.

On a 1.6x crop body, I find that 24-28 is FAR too long for my liking on the wide end. It gives you something like a 38-45mm wide!

You can always walk in closer, but you can't always step a few ways back.

17-40L is my favourite on a crop body. I think the wide end is still a little too long. I think the 24-105 would be perfect on a full frame for me =)

KevC wrote in post #2266527
50-70 of course.

On a 1.6x crop body, I find that 24-28 is FAR too long for my liking on the wide end. It gives you something like a 38-45mm wide!

You can always walk in closer, but you can't always step a few ways back.

17-40L is my favourite on a crop body. I think the wide end is still a little too long. I think the 24-105 would be perfect on a full frame for me =)

I agree with Kev except that you can't always walk forward either.

Since most of your shooting is at the wide end then go that route. The small percentage of shots at 51-55mm can still be made at 50mm and then cropped slightly if you desire. However, you can't add to an image that was taken with a lens that wasn't wide enough. I find the Tamron 28-75 to be an excellent range but would really prefer a wider lens. I am waiting for the Tokina 16-50 to be releaed before making my decision on which to get. I love my Tamron though.

unix04 wrote in post #2265126
there's also the sigma 24-70/2.8, which sort of rivals the tamron. just slightly wider...what would your percentages look like with this lens?

Yep, that's the lens I plan on getting to compliment my 70-200 f4L.

FWIW, when I was shooting with a 24-70L, I was frustrated a lot more from the fact that it wasn't wide enough. When I switched to the 17-55, I also did miss the reach of the 24-70 (and my previous 17-85) but the extra width MORE than made up for it. And I find I don't miss the gap between it and the 70-200, and you'll have a similar gap.

But it's all about your own shooting style, which you have taken the time and research to analyze. I applaud you for that. More come on here and expect to be told what's best for them.

The sigma 17-70 mentioned seems like a great fix for your problem though!!!

definitly the 17-50, of the lenses you mentioned.

Thanks for all of the input!

unix04 wrote in post #2265126
there's also the sigma 24-70/2.8, which sort of rivals the tamron. just slightly wider...what would your percentages look like with this lens?

Well, of my data sample, of my work shots, 36% of them are taken at 18mm. This drops to 14% at 18mm. This seems pretty significant considering the is only 1 of the 37 various focal lengths that can be used. To be honest, the Sigma was my original thought for replacing my kit lens. After reading upon reading, here and on other sites, my perceived concensus seemed to be that the Tamrons slightly out performed the Sigma. So that being the case, I turned my focus on to the two Tamrons.

picturecrazy wrote in post #2266651
FWIW, when I was shooting with a 24-70L, I was frustrated a lot more from the fact that it wasn't wide enough. When I switched to the 17-55, I also did miss the reach of the 24-70 (and my previous 17-85) but the extra width MORE than made up for it. And I find I don't miss the gap between it and the 70-200, and you'll have a similar gap.

But it's all about your own shooting style, which you have taken the time and research to analyze. I applaud you for that. More come on here and expect to be told what's best for them.

The sigma 17-70 mentioned seems like a great fix for your problem though!!!

Thanks for the your sharing your experience with the not so wide lens. It appears like you situation is very similar to my own. As for the Sigma 17-70, definitely not. A constant f/2.8 is an absoulute must for me.

I hate it, I know that the 17-50 is probably the right choice. But part of me really wants to go with the 28-75. The 28-75 is less expensive and on rebate, making it about $100 less, and it zooms to 75mm. It is probably because I have always had 18mm to use, but I cannot ever remember thinking, "gee, I wish I had a wider lens to shoot this". I can, however, remember thinking "Doh! out of zoom". Ultimately, the chances are very high that I will end up with the 17-50, especially since that seem to be the theme of everyones responses. All I need to do now is gag that little voice in my head telling me to "go big or go home" and get the reach of the 75mm.