Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 or Canon 28-70 f/2.8 OR tamron/Tokina/sigma

I am looking into buying a new lens...I have a 50mm f/1.8...which I love, but I would like something that I can adjust the focal length.

Which would you recommend? Canon 28-70 f/2.8 or the Canon 17-55 f/2.8?

Also...I would like to save some $$, so is the Tamron lens a good one to get instead of the Canon? Or tokina or sigma? If someone could give me a pro/con list that'd be amazing. Thanks!!

 

Thank you for the warm welcome! I used to post on another site (phototakers.com), but they somehwat closed down...or at least it's not maintained anymore. So, I found this site.

I have a 30d. $1000 for a lens is really expensive. Photography is a hobby of mine, so I don't know if I want to spend that kind of cash on a lens (esp since I'm a poor grad student who studies all the time). If the Tamron is a good alternative, then I'll just go ahead and go with that. I love my canon 50mm f/1.8 lens...and i'm glad I didn't fork over the 300 for the f/1.4.

What would you say the benefit is of purchasing the 16-35mm f/2.8 over the 17-55mm f/2.8?

Also, I know this is probably not the right area for this question, but can you explain the crop factor? I know I need to take everything times 1.6...but I don't think I really understand why. Thanks!!

 

I will say the major different is the cost. The canon 16-35mm f/2.8 may cost 3x more than the Tamron. But, the autofocus system in that Canon lens is faster and quieter if that matters. I do not own any of the lens listed, but from what I read, both are very good lens in terms of image quality.

As for the crop factor, I think it is more or less for people who used to 35mm film camera and switch to DSLR.

Let take an example. a 50mm lens on a 30D and a 35mm film camera.
If you take a picture of the same scene with both cameras, you will find that the field of view is different. You see a smaller field of view on the 30D camera. So when you print the pictures, the one that took with the 30D camera seem like it zoom in a little bit. (small field of view). However, if you can find a 32mm lens and use it in your 30D (32x1.6 ~50) and take a picture of the same scene and print it out, the picture will some what similar to the 50mm lens on a film camera.

The main reason for that is the size of the sensor in the 30D camera is smaller than a regular 35mm film. There are cameras in Canon line up that have a sensor close to the size (full size sensor) of a 35mm film such as 5d or 1ds mkiii.


There are pro and cons on the cropped sensor. One advantage of the cropped sensor is your lens focal length will appeared to be longer when compared to a 35mm film camera. In other words, your lens seem to be increase in zoom-in power.

 

I understand that it'll appear closer in my 30d...but if it's 50mm...shouldn't it just be 50mm? unless i just don't REALLY know what the 50mm means. And why didn't Canon just make the sensor the same size? Cost issue?

Mike, what do you think is more important? The build quality or the optics? I may just get the Tamron since it is more than half the price. Are you pretty happy with the lens? How is the focus on the lens? Thanks!!!

 

run a search for an explanation on crop factors and sensor sizes.

As someone who owns the 17-55 f2.8 IS, i can tell you that it is a great lens. Image quality wise, that is.
As far as build quality goes - it's not an L, but you don't sound like you need that. I am a news photographer in a pretty busy place, and subject my gear to a decent beating now and then, and i can tell you that photo gear doesn't like that. The 17-55 has been great, but lately it has been becoming loose and the IS stopped working(makes a buzzing sound). I don't need the IS on this lens, but i think it begat another problem - sometimes the lens gives out a reading of 00 aperture and it takes some knocking and turning off and on to get it back to work.

All in all, i'm keeping it, and will just get it fixed under Mack warranty until i'm ready to move to FF. To tell you that i regret the purchase? A little, yeah. I would have been better with a 16-35.

Then again, the whole front 1/3 of my 70-200 f2.8 IS has become loose by what seems like at least a 1/4 of an inch, and just bounces around.

So there's L quality build for ya.

 

Does the Tamron les 17-55 f/2.8 have the same problem with build? I obviously want something that's not going to break down!!

 

A friend of mine has it. Doesn't focus anymore.

But again, you need to ask yourself how YOU will take care of you gear, and how much abuse will it see. It's not like anyhting that isn't L is flimsy and breaks down after 2K shots. No. Its all a matter of expectations and care.