Do I need / want both?

Ok, so I generally have a Canon 17-85 on my 20D all the time. I was looking at the thread about the Tamron 17-35 and it looked cool - aspheric, wide angle. Hubby asked why I would "need" a 17-35 if I have a 17-85.

Any ideas? I mean, is it a redundant lens? Would I be better off getting something else? I ordered the Canon 10-22 and can't wait to play with that.

I don't want to waste the money, but if the 17-35 is better in some situations than the 17-85??....



Thanks.

For FL, it is total redundancy. But FL is not the only consideration!
The Tamron is a sharper lens, it has less CA and less barrel distortion than the Canon, and it is 1EV faster max aperture! OTOH, the Canon does have IS going for it. So you could own both lenses and have different photographic situations in which one is clearly superior to the other. For example, for low light gatherings, the Tamron is better; as a single lens walkabout on vacation, the Canon range of FL is nicer to have.

ask yourself what exact use for it do you anticipate? with that info you'll get better replies.

overall it's redundant and you'll miss the reach. a fast prime would be more useful for low light . cheaper & sharper too.

i'm not sure it makes sense, especially since you're happy with the 17-85.

pgoodness wrote in post #3977841
Hubby asked why I would "need" a 17-35 if I have a 17-85

Smart man! If I were you, I'd stick with the 1785 and add a fast prime or something else like an UWA.

I don't think you need both. You gain aperture with the f/2.8-4.0 Tamron, but you lose focal length and IS. Others can/have/will comment on IQ differences.

Look at your shooting history to determine how much you would miss 36-85, if you plan to replace the Canon lens with the Tamron. Maybe look at how often and how much you've had to bump ISO in order get a decent shutter speed to assess if the wider aperture will help.

This should help you decide which one of the lenses better suits your needs.

Is there some reason to want the 17-35, rather than the 17-50mm Tamron???

uh, wouldn't the 17-50 be just as redundant as the 17-35? I'm a little new still, so any comments appreciated!!

pgoodness wrote in post #3978133
uh, wouldn't the 17-50 be just as redundant as the 17-35? I'm a little new still, so any comments appreciated!!

The 1750 is a constant f2.8 with more range. So in a sense it's a better choice for you than the 1735. But if you had the 1750 f2.8, I'd sell the 1785 as well.