I have the Tamron 28-75 and love it. Most of my pictures are taken around the long end of this lens. I do want something wider for landscapes. I was looking at the Tamron 17-50 because of some of the reviews, but I would like some suggestions. I need to stay under $500.

Tamron 17-50's is more suited as walk-around lens on an APS-C camera like the one you have.
If you really want to go wider, Tokina 12-24 f/4.0 could be another good options that still fits your budget.

are you intending on keeping the Tamron 28-75?

if you are then the 17-50 is not one I would choose . too much overlap for the 11mm extra width.

I would suggest you look at a used 12-24 Tokina . great lens with goes well with you other zoom . OK its a stop slower than the 17-50 (and you current lens) but its a sharp performer even wide open.

I have one to go with my 24-105 . I use the 24-105 most of the time and tend to find I use the Tokina (when I do) at its wider settings

Obviously Massimo Foti types faster than me

I am in the same boat, actually. I was thinking about starting a thread, but maybe I can jump in on this one.

I also have a Tamrom 28-75 and am reasonably satisfied with it. One day I'll probably get the canon 24-70, but that's low on the list. Anyway...

I would like to get a little wider angle lens. I'd prefer not to spend a bunch of money, but I do appreciate great optics. My friend has a Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 and I've played with it. Very good optics but the AF is frustrating. I could see perhaps getting one, though.

However, on the wide end I think I could do just fine with a prime. There doesn't really seem to be a great mid-range option for a wide prime though. I've been sort of eying the Canon 24mm 2.8, but would like something a little better. Not sure if I want to splurge on the 24mm 1.4L II, though. I'm still open to zoom's, though, but not sure if I want to shell out > $1k on that either. Perhaps a 16-35 2.8 I is a reasonable "in between". Just not sure.

Brian, sorry to hijack your thread a bit, but I think we're looking for the same answers.

Ian.Dobinson wrote:
Obviously Massimo Foti types faster than me
It was just a matter of a few seconds

Brian, I guess I'll share with you some of my thoughts on this so far.

I've been looking for a zoom or prime that can hit something in the 20-24mm range very well. I don't think I'd want a prime wider than 20mm, as that's pretty wide. Anyway, I've been looking at:

Canon 24mm f/2.8 - No USM, but no big deal. Cheap, but not stellar build quality. From the reviews, optics seem to be hit or miss depending on the copy, but mostly hit. Right now this is probably my top candidate. But if I eventually get a 24-70mm 2.8L then that is probably comparable at 24mm to this prime. Would the prime then be a waste?..not sure

Canon 24mm f/1.4L II - Really want, but too expensive.

Canon 24mm f/1.4L I - The prices on this one have come down, but still too expensive

Sigma 24mm f/1.8 - Interesting option, but the reviews are hit or miss. Not sure if this is a big upgrade from the Canon 24mm 2.8

Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L I - Used seems to be going for $900-ish. I'm sure this is a good lens, but more than I'd like to pay. There's also a 17-35 floating around out there that's a bit cheaper I think, but not quite as good optically.

Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 - I have played with this one and like it, but at a similar price point the Canon 16-35mm 2.8 I might be preferable? Still a tad expensive.

Canon 17-40 f/4L - Right in my price range, but I'm turned off by the f/4. I've also heard mixed reviews on its optical qualities.

But again, I would probably prefer a prime lens in this range, but just don't feel like shelling out tons of money. Maybe that's what one has to do... :-/

leftymgp wrote:
I also have a Tamrom 28-75 and am reasonably satisfied with it.

What kind of camera do you have? On an APS-C 16 or 24mm isn't that wide. I would assume you have a full-frame, but you better clarify that upfront.


I would like to get a little wider angle lens. I'd prefer not to spend a bunch of money, but I do appreciate great optics. My friend has a Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 and I've played with it. Very good optics but the AF is frustrating. I could see perhaps getting one, though.

I never tried Tokina 16-28, but I own Tokina 11-16 and 16-50, I also tried Tokina 12-24. AF isn't that fast on any of them, but usually accurate.
What was wrong on Tokina 16-28's AF? Is it that much worse than Tamrom 28-75's AF?

For what's worth, Tokina also have a 17-35 f/4.0, it's quite a new product, but I see you already commented on f/4.0 being to slow.

I own a 16-28 and find the AF works just fine, and works well even in dark situations. I have never heard of any issues with its AF, its not USM, but plenty fast and accurate. Took mine to Tokyo last week and had lots of fun with it on the 5DII and used F2.8 a surprising amount of the time.

I own the Canon T2i.
What advantage would I get with a Tokina 17-35 over a Tamron 17-50?

I have a 5dc. I found that I had trouble getting shots in focus with the Tokina 16-28. When I nailed it, the image was great. But otherwise several of the pics I took seemed to a little off. Perhaps my friend's copy is not calibrated or something.

Maybe I should rent a few of my options and try them out.

brian4646 wrote:
I own the Canon T2i.
What advantage would I get with a Tokina 17-35 over a Tamron 17-50?

The tokina 17-35 is over your budget . And for what that costs I would rather have the 17-40 canon

My vote is still with the tok 12-24/4 unless your budget can stretch to the 10-22

brian4646 wrote:
I own the Canon T2i.
What advantage would I get with a Tokina 17-35 over a Tamron 17-50?

If you're on a crop body and like Canon I'd go with the Canon 17-55/2.8 or the Canon 15-85/variable.

rhyx wrote:
brian4646 wrote:
I own the Canon T2i.
What advantage would I get with a Tokina 17-35 over a Tamron 17-50?

If you're on a crop body and like Canon I'd go with the Canon 17-55/2.8 or the Canon 15-85/variable.


Yep way to go. OP says budget is 500 and uses the 28-75 at the long end alot and the suggestion is for a $1k lens thats shorter on the long end and another that$750

tokina 12-24. 17 is not that wide on a crop.

Scott Snyder wrote:
tokina 12-24. 17 is not that wide on a crop.

+1

I use the Sigma 10-20 F4.5-5 on a 7D. Under $500 and a nice sharp lens. There will be that 20-28 gap but looks like you will be getting some sort of small gap with most ultrawide zooms. If you want something wide for landscapes then even 17mm that some suggest might not be enough on a crop. If you are happy with 17mm then you might want to consider a used Canon 17-40 F4L. Chances are you will be stopping down anyhow and unlike many of the suggestions this will also mount FF. If unhappy with it, sell it again with little or no loss (since it's got that L glass thing going).

leftymgp wrote:
I have a 5dc.

I suggest you open a dedicated thread, since wide on a 5D is different than wide on a T2i. By keep mixing the two we generate confusion.

Brian, since you started this thread, I'll respond to you. Lefty, you gotta start your own thread (as recommended) because it's generating confusion.

I have the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6, and I'm very happy with it. Used to have the Canon 10-22 (out of your budget by a bit even used), but the Sigma can be had used for 360-380 or so. If you don't need ultrawide and are just looking for "wider than 28mm", then sell the 28-75, pick up the Tamron 17-50, and spend the money you have now on something longer. Canon 55-250mm (150 used), tamron 70-300mm vc (280 used), Canon 70-300mm IS (380 used), Canon 70-200mm f/4 (non-IS) (500 used) are all great.

Pick up the 50mm 1.8 too.

17-55mm and the 15-85mm? Really? Sheesh.