looking for a wider angle lens help please

I curently have a 40D and the 70-200 f4 L and a 28-135 is usm lens. I am thinking of selling the 28-135 and getting a wider lens. 28 just does not seem wide enough for some of my situations. I shoot a lot of portraits, i would also like to use this lens indoors at parties and such. Maybe get into some landscapes.

I have been looking at the 17-55 is but at 900 dollars that is a bit out of my budget.

I am hoping to sell the 28-135 for about 400 is that reasonable to achieve. If it sells at that price i could through another 100 towards the cost of a new lens.

since the 17-55 2.8 is out, i checked out the 17-55 f4-5.6 is usm how is this lens?

any suggestions would be much appreciated

Thanks
Roshan

I think you would be lucky to get $300 for the 28-135. There are a lot out there for sale. I would say plan on $250-275 average.

The 18-55 3.5-5.6 IS is a pretty good lens, but f5.6 is pretty slow at 55mm for the good portrat background blur. I would recommend something that is f2.8 or faster. Tamron and Sigma make nice wide standard f2.8 zooms. You might look at those. Check out the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 macro. Both would work nicely for you.

In addition, your 70-200 can make a nice portrait lens with enough room to work or outdoors.

Another +1 for the Tamron/Sigma 17/18-50 F/2.8.

I got one to cover my wide needs for groups and stuff.
Sometimes I find the 50 end just too short.
Was thinking on the Sigma 28-70 F/2.8, but it's not wide enough for a crop body.

Alternatively, you could spend $300 or so on the Canon 17-85 F/4-5.6 IS USM lens.
The focal range i think you'll love because it covers wide and long in one package.

You'll hate the build though.

thank you for the sugestions, i currently use the 70-200 already for portraits and love this lens. on the wider end would u recomend one over the other as far as the sigma vs tamron.

Check out the lens sample subsection...

Sigma

Tamron

Subfightersandman wrote in post #8368490
thank you for the sugestions, i currently use the 70-200 already for portraits and love this lens. on the wider end would u recomend one over the other as far as the sigma vs tamron.

They are both really good. The Tamron has a little bit wider starting point and sharper edges wide open, the Sigma has a quieter AF motor and can focus a bit closer. If you wanna take close up semi-macros then get the Sigma.

alright thank you for all the suggestions after reading several reviews i think i may go with the tamron, it seems to be sharper, focus faster (even though it noisy), and focus more accurately

Why not UWA? Tokina makes a great 11-16 with a constant 2.8, very sharp. Then theres always Canon's 10-22 3.5-4.5

how wide are you willing to go? there are alot of great uwa lenses for crop bodies.
canon 10-22. tokina 11-16. sigma 12-24 etc.

irrelevant wrote in post #8370608
Why not UWA? Tokina makes a great 11-16 with a constant 2.8, very sharp. Then theres always Canon's 10-22 3.5-4.5

He said he shoots a lot of portraits. Not really UWA territory

Another +1 for the Tamron/Sigma 17-50 F/2.8

Then there is also the Tokina 12-24 f/4 for landscapes. I really like it.

tkbslc wrote in post #8370745
He said he shoots a lot of portraits. Not really UWA territory

Well UWA would be good for parties and landscapes. For portraits, I wouldn't recommend anything other than a fast prime (50mm 1.8 & >, 35mm 2.0 & >

irrelevant wrote in post #8371171
Well UWA would be good for parties and landscapes. For portraits, I wouldn't recommend anything other than a fast prime (50mm 1.8 & >, 35mm 2.0 & >

I would agree that primes would be better but I would also like to use this lens for other things as well, I will most likely build a prime collection at a later date. As for the UWA i am not sure how much use I would get out of something that wide. And if i did go that wide it would force me to buy a third lens to cover the missing focal range between 24 and 70, which i cannot afford right now

You might be interested in this article:

http://www.wlcastleman​.com …ws/17-85compare/index.htm

I think everyone needs a good standard zoom. So definitely get one of those first. You have some strobes, too, so having an f1.4 or f2 is less important. F2.8 can produce nice background blur at 50mm

As for primes, I have a few manual focus ones which are fun to play around with. Using an M42 to EOS adapter and liveview to focus, you can take some great shots. I got a nice Russian 58mm f2 lens - Helios 44 - for about $30 shipped, and a Takumar 55 1.8 for about the same price. Might be fun to find one of those to play with in conjunction with a good standard zoom.

You're not going to be shooting people at parties at f1.4 and expect to get anything in focus. so that's not a selling point for going prime, imo. I doubt you'll even be shooting at f2.8, for that matter. A 17-50/2.8 sounds like it would fill the bill, perfectly.