gregory_mclemor Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 <p>Hello<br> My name is Gregory and I am going to buy a wide angle lens for my Canon 50d. I am consideri the Canon 17- 40L, Canon 17-55 2.8, Tamron 17-50 VC 2.8 lens or the Sigma 17-50 2.8 lens. Can anyone recommend which one is best for the money. Is the Canon 2.8 worth the extra $ 400?<br> Thanks</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jesse_barba Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 <p>17mm isn't all that wide on the 50d. I would add the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 high on your list. As a general purpose lens, the ef-s 17-55 2.8 IS would be the best pick on your list, in my opinion.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bueh Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Is the Canon 2.8 worth the extra $ 400?</p> </blockquote> <p>For some it is, for some not. How can we say if it is for you?</p> <p>Else I can only second what Jesse said. A standard zoom with ~17mm at the wide end is hardly a wide angle lens. For that you need a dedicated super-wide zoom. The two Tokina options (11-16mm f/2.8 and 12-24mm f/4) are indeed very good optically.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgpinc Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 <p>The best buy is not on your list. It is the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 non-VC lens reputed to be sharper and lighter than the VC version. Any of the other three APS-C lenses are outstanding on a crop body and I would guess that from f4 up they are indistinguishable with only subtleties in build quality, focus speed and size to differentiate them. The 17-40mm 4.0 is to my thinking better suited for full frame. Good luck!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregory_mclemor Posted February 9, 2011 Author Share Posted February 9, 2011 <p>Thanks a lot for the info</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 <p>17 is not all that wide but I will add a used Canon EF 17-35/2.8 L to the list at about the same price as a new 17-40/4 L.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_Cavan Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 <p>Have you looked at the Canon 10-22 EFS lens? It is limited to the Canon cropped sensor bodies, but that is where you are now with the 50D. It is truly a wide-angle, and I think holds up well even at it's widest end. It costs a little more, but we think we made the right decision when we compared it to the Tamron 10-24. On a cropped sensor 10mm is about equivalent (I think) to a 16mm on a traditional 24mm SLR.</p> Dave Cavan https://davecavanphotographics.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massimo_foti Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 <p>You could add Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 to your list.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markonestudios Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 <p>What lens do you currently have for your 50D? As has been pointed out, if you're looking for an ultrawide angle of view, you're likely going to need a Canon 10-22 or Sigma 10-22 or Tokina 11-16 as 17mm on a APS-C sensor is not very wide. If however you have a 28mm lens now, then the 17's will provide significantly wider coverage.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Ian Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 <p>From everything I've seen and read, if you are on a budget, the Sig 17-50/2.8 OS or the Tamron 17-50/2.8 (VC) is a far better buy than the EF-S 17-55/2.8. </p> <p>Both have optical image stabilization, and imagery that is supposedly on par with the EF-S, but neither have Full time manual focus w/ USM type drives. Given that, if I were to be looking to purchase a lens of that range for a crop sensor camera, even though I'd prefer the EF-S, I'd probably go w/ the Sig or Tamron VC. The 17-40/4 is a waste of money unless you plan on FF in the future, as it's slower and it has no IS.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthijs Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 <p>Gentlemen, 17mm is wide. It's just not ultra wide on a crop camera.</p> <p>The numbers: 17mm * 1.6 crop = 27 mm which counts a wide.</p> <p>That said, the best/cheapest is the Tamron 17-50/2.8 non-VC. If you think you need a stabilized lens you really want to consider the Canon EF-s 17-55/2.8.</p> <p>The EF 17-40/4L is a great lens but for a general purpose the 40mm is a little short.</p> <p>All the best, Matthijs.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_hitchen Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Gentlemen, 17mm is wide. It's just not ultra wide on a crop camera</p> </blockquote> <p>I was beginning to think I was the only person who thought along those lines. I trekked in the Himalyas with a 35mm (film) camera and a 28mm lens and I dont recall ever thinking 'I am missing so much. I need <em>much</em> wider'.<br> With wide angles like the 17mm end, VC becomes less important (think of the 1/f rule for handholding) so if money is tight then the non-VC version will do you very well. But if you are a keen landscaper I presume you have a tripod anyway.</p> <p>Is the extra cost of the Canon worth it? Many say the Tamron pretty near equals it - I got the Canon only because a bonus at work paid the difference. The new Sigma 17-70 has had some excellent reviews <em>and</em> the focal range is longer. Can you get to a camera shop with your camera and a memory card to try them out and look at the images at home?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now