17ish - 50ish for Canon

[BuzzLiteyear]

I'm looking to get a new lens in the range above. I'd like to use it for portraits. I have several primes but would like to get something a bit wider and with a zoom so I can use it in different situations. I'd like to spend under $1K. Any suggestions or recommendations would be appreciated.

 

[C&B Young]

I'm assuming you're shooting with a crop sensor? The Canon 17-55 f/2.8 is by most accounts a fantastic lens but costs right around $1000. Budget alternatives are the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, it comes without IS for under $500 or with IS for just over $600. We've got the non-IS version and are very happy with it.

 

[mom2rtk]

I did a lot of research before investing in the Canon 17-55 f/2.8. I'll save you some time:

The Tamron non-IS version is very sharp and well reviewed. Its focus motor is annoyingly loud.

Tamron sells an IS version but it lost some of the sharpness the original was famous for.

The Sigma is not as sharp as the Tamron.

The Canon in crazy expensive but crazy good. I have unsteady hands so really wanted IS. I have not regretted it a bit and it's on my camera 90% of the time.

If IS (or whatever Tamron calls it) is not important, get the Tamron. But find a clip on Youtube so you can hear the focus motor first. That pushed me to the Canon simply because I didn't want to give my kids an announcement every time I wanted to take their picture!

 

[mplindsay1]

I've had the Canon 17-55 2.8 ef-s lens since soon after its release and it is my every-day, walk-around, go-to lens. Purchasing it was definitely money well spent.

 

[bob100]

I'm looking to get a new lens in the range above. I'd like to use it for portraits. I have several primes but would like to get something a bit wider and with a zoom so I can use it in different situations. I'd like to spend under $1K. Any suggestions or recommendations would be appreciated.

lots of choices -
Top Canon 17-55 2.8
middle: Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS HSM, Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC
Bottom: (but still good)
Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc, sigma 17-70 2.8

 

[Bstanley]

Another vote for the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS.

It's $1,100 new at the 'New York' stores (B&H and Adorama), however refurbished models do come on the market (at Adorama anyway) for less - I got mine for $940 this past spring. I prefer buying refurbished from Adorama rather than Canon because Adorama has a one year warranty where Canon only has 90 days.

The lens is really excellent - sharp across it's entire range, sturdy, solid focusing, vibrant color. It's only drawback (beside cost) is that it is much larger and heavier than the kit lens, but having that f2.8 across the range is REALLY nice.

 

[BuzzLiteyear]

Thank you. Yes, crop sensor. I appreciate the reviews. I have been looking at the Canon, Tamron, and Sigma. I was leaning towards the Tamron, but now I'm looking at the Canon again.

 

[photo_chick]

IMO the Canon 17-55 is worth the extra $$$ over the third party options if you can afford it.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

I love my 17-55 EF-S on my 60D. It's my "go-to" lens for 75% of the time just walking around. You just can't go wrong with this lens. It's one of Canon's best crop lenses, and if it weren't for a crop sensor, most agree it would be an "L" lens (hence, the price).

I got a great deal on one at POTN that was basically in like new condition. I've also had great luck on eBay over the years. Of course, YMMV.

 

[WDWFigment]

I did a lot of research before investing in the Canon 17-55 f/2.8. I'll save you some time:

The Tamron non-IS version is very sharp and well reviewed. Its focus motor is annoyingly loud.

Tamron sells an IS version but it lost some of the sharpness the original was famous for.

The Sigma is not as sharp as the Tamron.

The Canon in crazy expensive but crazy good. I have unsteady hands so really wanted IS. I have not regretted it a bit and it's on my camera 90% of the time.

If IS (or whatever Tamron calls it) is not important, get the Tamron. But find a clip on Youtube so you can hear the focus motor first. That pushed me to the Canon simply because I didn't want to give my kids an announcement every time I wanted to take their picture!

What she said.

ALTERNATIVELY, if you can find it, get the Promaster 17-50 f/2.8. When I was looking for a 17-50, I saw this for $300. Ultimately, I didn't get it, because it doesn't have the built-in motor, and the lens is primarily for my wife, who has a D3100 (thus needing the BIM).

The Promaster lens is exactly the same as the Tamron non-IS, except no BIM, so no noise, and quicker/more accurate AF. Win-win.

 

[Bstanley]

The Promaster lens is exactly the same as the Tamron non-IS, except no BIM, so no noise, and quicker/more accurate AF.

Isn't the BIM used for the auto-focus? How would that work on a Canon? Manual Focus only I guess?

 

[bob100]

Isn't the BIM used for the auto-focus? How would that work on a Canon? Manual Focus only I guess?

I think that's a Nikon only thing (focus screw drive). All the Promaster 17-50 2.8 lens I've seen for Canon have an internal focus motor

 

[hafa]

Another vote for the 17-55mm f/2.8. It's a great walk around lens that is incredible at night!

 

[Porktitioner]

Might want to check out the Canon EF-S 15-85 USM IS. Its a great walk- around lens for the Canon series. Though it is not a very fast lens in terms of apeture, the IS really helps out. Focus is sharp throughout. You basically get L- series quality at not quite L-series price. Look at the reviews on B and H Photo and Adorama.

 

[theduck619]

What is the difference between having a camera with or without a crop sensor?

 

[boBQuincy]

What is the difference between having a camera with or without a crop sensor?

Since most dSLRs have a lot in common with 35mm film SLRs a sensor the same size as 35mm film (approximately 24 x 36mm) is considered "full frame". A smaller sensor on a similar camera body is considered a "crop sensor". The main difference is the crop sensor gives an image similar to full frame but with the edges cropped off. In most cases about 60% of the image is retained, it varies slightly between brands.

The smaller sensor accounts for some other differences from full frame but the size of the sensor (and the size of the image) is the main thing.

 

[Frantasmic]

Good price on used Canon 17-55 f2.8 lens at the following link. Just happened to notice it the other day.

http://www.borrowlenses.com/product/For_Sale/Canon_17-55_f2.8_IS_EF-S

 

[mom2rtk]

I suppose I need to make my standard response here as well: The most expensive lens is the one you have to buy twice. Meaning that if you compromise at the outset, you could end up back in the lens market again sooner than you like.

Given the choice of a new 3rd party or a refurbished or used Canon (assuming you confirm it's not full of dust) I'd take the Canon. And I'm not anti-3rd party lenses. I have some I love to pieces from both Sigma and Tamron.


ETA: Sorry to bump an old thread. I meant to post this in the newer thread.