crop sensor lens for 400-600$ price range ? (canon)

theregoesjb · Feb 11, 2012

I have been looking at the tamaron 17-50 f/2.4 which is around 400$ which is comparable to sigmas version of the same lens but im wondering what else is out there. Canons 17-55 seems a little nicer but i dont see it being worth double the price. The 17-40L f/4 would be my next consideration, and though i could handle the price, i think i would appreciate the tamarons 2.4 aperture more than the L glass.
Does anyone have any other lenses that come to mind in the wide angle/zoom category?

iskoos · Feb 15, 2012

I have only seen and used Canon's 17-55 f/2.8 lense out of the 3 you mentioned above. It is a really nice one. Yes I agree, it is pricey as with any other Canon branded stuff. It is really tough to shed that much money on a EF-S lense knowing that it won't work with full frame body if you plan on upgrading in the future. I am not big fan of aftermarket stuff. I heard many people use Tamron and Sigma lenses with success but for me I see lenses as investment. This said, I don't think those off brands will retain their value well if you want to sell it later. Out of the 3 you mentioned above, I would lean toward the EF 17-40 f/4. I would think that it would have more takers (comparing to EF-S 17-55) due to being an EF lense and having L glass if you want to let it go later. I am definitely not saying that a few extra stops that Tamron and Canon 17-55 have don't make any difference; it does!.. It is always a trade off unfortunately...
Sorry I can't make additional recommendation since I didn't use many lenses in that category. Hopefully someone else will chime in to share...

DiskoJoe · Feb 15, 2012

The only people I know that use the 17-40L do landscape/cityscape photography. It works very well for that since it is mostly tripod and long exposure type of stuff. Is you want to use this for portraits I would suggest getting the 2.8 or a nice flash. The tamron is okay but really its the bottom of the market. The canon or sigma versions would be better quality and are worth the price since you get better glass and build. The canon is especially sturdy build which is why it is the more expensive option. But you get what you pay for. If you plan to use this professionally get the canon or the sigma. The canon 24-70L is also a great lens and I have many friends that use it for portrait and event work.

belial · Feb 15, 2012

iskoos said:
I have only seen and used Canon's 17-55 f/2.8 lense out of the 3 you mentioned above. It is a really nice one. Yes I agree, it is pricey as with any other Canon branded stuff. It is really tough to shed that much money on a EF-S lense knowing that it won't work with full frame body if you plan on upgrading in the future. I am not big fan of aftermarket stuff. I heard many people use Tamron and Sigma lenses with success but for me I see lenses as investment. This said, I don't think those off brands will retain their value well if you want to sell it later. Out of the 3 you mentioned above, I would lean toward the EF 17-40 f/4. I would think that it would have more takers (comparing to EF-S 17-55) due to being an EF lense and having L glass if you want to let it go later. I am definitely not saying that a few extra stops that Tamron and Canon 17-55 have don't make any difference; it does!.. It is always a trade off unfortunately...
Sorry I can't make additional recommendation since I didn't use many lenses in that category. Hopefully someone else will chime in to share...

I must agree with you. Going aftermarket isn't an option for me either and spending L glass price on an efs lens that'll be obsolete in a couple years doesn't seem smart either.

Big Mike · Feb 15, 2012

The EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS, is a great lens. And from what I've seen, it does hold it's value. Maybe not quite as well as most L lenses, but pretty well. Check for yourself, if you can find a used one for less than $800, it probably won't last long.
And yes, there is the issue of upgrading to full frame. I got caught in that trap myself, but I just sold my 'crop sensor' glass and bought full frame compatible lenses and got on with my life.

The lens I used most (on my crop cameras) was the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8. The quality was great and the price was fantastic. The AF speed and motor noise were less than ideal, but it was about 1/3 the price of the Canon (at the time) so I was plenty happy with it.

bazooka · Feb 15, 2012

Mike and I had pretty much the same setup and I agree with his summary. I still have the Tamron 17-50 2.8 for my wife to use on her xti, but it was my everyday walk-around lens... if there is such a thing. Quite sharp and smaller than the 17-40. I have the 17-40 also and am not so impressed with the build quality. It feels cheaper than it is. If I had a crop and didn't have plans to go FF, I'd recommend the Tamron 17-50 over the Canon 17-40 all things considered.

Big Mike · Feb 15, 2012

I have the 17-40mm F4 L, and I don't think it feels cheap in any way. It's not the best lens in the world, but it's a great wide angle for a full frame/film body.
I do think it's worth considering, mainly if someone has definite plans to upgrade to full frame, sooner rather than later. But if someone isn't sure when or if they will go to full frame, then I don't think the 17-40mm is an ideal 'standard zoom' lens. The quality is fine, but the range is limited. You'll really miss the last 10mm from 40mm to 50mm. Sure, it's just a step forward, but I'd always be wanting more.
Secondly, it's only F4. The extra stop to F2.8 gives you faster shutter speeds and shallower DOF, both can be great things.

bratkinson · Feb 15, 2012

I'm partial to the EF-S 18-135 f3.5-5.6. It was my first lens on my 30D. It has decent IQ, and was wide-enough and long-enough to handle any walk-around situation. It's drawback is being slow. Indoor work requires an external flash most of the time. Check out the reviews of the 18-135 and also the 18-200. Find one used in near-mint condition and a good used Speedlite and I think you'll be a happy camper.