A 17-50 vs a 28-75. Is 28 not wide enough?

J

joossiej

Member
Hi guys.

I recently got my Canon 60d body. I am currently using it with a vintage 50mm 1.8 prime.
And a rubbish 70-230mm f/4 tele-lens.

Now I'd like to buy a standard lens to keep on the camera most of the time,
The lenses of choice were the Tamron 17-50 2.8, the Tamron 28-75 2.8 or the Sigma 24-70 2.8

They're all third-party lenses, but my budget doesn't allow me to go for Canon.

Well do you guys have any experience with the Sigma 24-70? Or just 24mm at all?
Is it wide enough on a 1.6 crop factor?

Well since in the far future I'll might be upgrading to a Full-Frame body, I'm considering the other two lenses, because they're EF-lenses. And not EF-S lenses.

Thanks a lot!
 
since all usual definition of lenses are based on full frame format, you can say that a 17-50 is a relatively wide angle lens.
unfortunately with the 7D you have to multiply by 1.6 that give you 27-80.
if you were interested by the wide angle side of the 17-50, this is a lot less interesting since you really have a start at 27.
in most case , i should say that the 17-50 is ok, but i am ofter dreaming to a bit more extension at both ends of the lens.
i got the the tokina 11-16, the 17-50 and the 28-80 (all at 2.8 constant on a 550D , only for video), and if you compare to more general purpose lenses that
offer a much bigger choice (like 17-80 or 28-105 for example, but often with a trade for smaller and variable aperture),
you will always curse about that lens that is not going wider or closer enough....
but if you need fast lenses , it is the price to pay.
this is really related to the kind of shooting you do. Events were most of the shoot distance is relatively unplanned (or at least variable)
are not the best place to use such lenses.
on the other hand, fiction with controlled stages can be done with primes that often offers better features (faster lens up to 1.4 and better focus ring).
so i would say that zoom lenses like these ones should be really considered as the best compromise (and so far the most frustrating solution).
So if you really want a general purpose lens, try to find a 17-80 (or better) even if it is a 3.5-5.6 lens.
after all we do not shoot at night all the time, and with a dslr, you rarely zoom while shooting.
 
Last edited:
joossiej said:
Now I'd like to buy a standard lens to keep on the camera most of the time,
Tamron 17-50 2.8
Click to expand...

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is a good pick for the money, but won't work on the 5D. If you shoot wide the Tokina 11-16 is a solid choice for an ultra wide f2.8 and will work on the 5D at 15mm to 16mm.
 
Yep 24 is not wide enough. 17-50 is the way to go. APS-C sensor is roughly tye same size a S35, so you want to cover the same range you would for a film cam. Your basic PL mount prime set is 18, 25, 35, 50 and 85. You can see the 17-50 covers almost the whole range. It is easy to add another prime to cover 85 later for relatively cheap (the canon 85 1.8 is very nice). Try to find a fast prime in the 17-19mm range and you will see that it is not going to happen cheap.
 
saneproductions said:
17-50 is the way to go.
.
Click to expand...

I have tested the 17-50 non vc and it seems to be a good lens for the price, but I have heard a few consistency complaints about Tamron in general which has held me back.
The other thing to consider is that even though I think the APC-s is a format I will hang on to, I will certainly add a FF 5D at some point. Quality lenses are expensive so I want to have as many lenses fit both formats as possible. In the wide range the 11-16 Tokina will work on the 5D at 15mm to 16mm. From 16mm it's a jump to my 24mm 2.8 prime I think I can deal with it until a good 18mm or 20mm prime falls in my lap.
 
I should have said the 17-50 range is the way to go. I don't have the tamron, I got the canon. Fo the price the Tamron and Sigma lenes are well liked.

For you Michael, jumping from 24 to 16 is a good call. That is my plan too.
 
I should clarify that I have the 17-55 2.8 IS as my all around zoom. I use a 24mm prime as my walk around lens and plan to keep it along with my tokina 11-16 when I move to full frame. I will sell the 17-55 plus the 60D and that should pay for a good portion of the 5D III body.

My FF kit will be:
Tokina 11-16
Canon 24 F1.4L II
Canon 50 1.8 II (trying to decide which 50 to get, but the 1.2L seems too expensive)
Leica 90 F2
 
saneproductions said:
I should have said the 17-50 range is the way to go. I don't have the tamron, I got the canon. Fo the price the Tamron and Sigma lenes are well liked.

.
Click to expand...

I have a shoot now next Tuesday and I suddenly need a wide lens to go on my new 60D. I'm on the fence between the Tamron 17-50 and the Tokina 11-16. I have Canon primes from 24mm to 50mm, a 17-50mm f2.8 for only $363 here is looking very appealing as apposed to the Tokina for $660 with a more limited fiield. The Tokina is also limited somewhat by it's distortion of round objects and doesn't work in all situations, great for what it is though.
For what I need next week and as a daily carry around the 17-50 will do a better job, and for the money it leaves some room for the Canon 85mm 1.8, that I've wanted for a while, if I get the sudden urge to part with another $352.
The Tamron non vc from all I've read and seen is a sharp lens. Some complaints about auto focus noise, but I just need manual focus mostly on the wide end anyway.
I have till Friday to decide. ?
 
Last edited:
The 11-16 is really a specialty lens and not that great for general kinds of shoots you would put in a short film or video. I use it for cool/dramitic shots in b-roll or stills, but can't see using it in narrative storrytelling except in special cases. If you don't mind shooting primes, then you could go 11-16, 24 and 50 and you would likely be ok. I think you may miss that 35mm range, but the real loss will be speed (switching lenses). I would suggest getting the 17-50 first if you need the speed. You may even consider selling your 24 2.8 if the tamron covers that range well enough. That would free up more cash for the tokina.

My priority list:
17-50 (or 55) 2.8 IS Zoom
Fast 50
Tokina 11-16
Fast normal (my preference is the wide side of normal 24-28)
Fast telephoto 85-90

Again, this just fits my style of shooting.
 
saneproductions said:
The 11-16 is really a specialty lens and not that great for general kinds of shoots

I think you may miss that 35mm range, but the real loss will be speed (switching lenses). I would suggest getting the 17-50 first if you need the speed. You may even consider selling your 24 2.8 if the tamron covers that range well enough. That would free up more cash for the tokina.
Click to expand...
I have other Olympus zuiko manual lenses in the range also, 24mm f2.8 / 28mm f2.8 / 35mm f2.8 / 50mm 1.4 / but definitely not practical to carry around.
The Canon 24mm 2.8 I got for a 5D shoot in August and I'd like to hang on to it for the Mark III, but the APC-s format has done so well I can't see giving it up any time soon.
The Tamron 17-50 seem like the lens I need right now and not to big a hit on cash. I used the 18-55 most of the time until I sold it with the 550 so the same range in a constant f2.8 well be a welcome upgrade.
 
I have a 17-55 2.8, a 70-200 2.8 and a 50mm 1.4 fixed.

I like the 50 mm but it's often not wide enough. I'd love to have a fast 28mm or so as a normal lens on my 7D. For me, 1.4 would be great but I'd settle for 1.8.
 
saneproductions said:
The sigma 30 1.4 is pretty nice, but for me I wanted wider for my walk around prime. I really like 24mm for this on APS-C.
Click to expand...

I kind of agree but once you hit 24 mm you're talking $bux$ especially if you want speed. I'm jealous of your 24mm 1.4L II, that's for sure! I might rent one for a shoot next year.
 
I just shot stills for a band and the 1.4 saved my a$$. I can't believe how much difference 2 stops makes in low light. It is the difference between ISO 3200 and 12,800!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top