Walkabout for £400 (secondhand?)

[toto8462]

Hi all,

I bought a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens of a forum member a couple of weeks ago, and I hoped this would make a good replacement for my Canon 18-55mm IS that came with my 450D. However, I now realise that 28mm is too close for a lot of the stuff I'm into and although I love the Tamron, I would really need to buy a wide angle lens to justify keeping it.

So, given I cant let go of my Canon 18-55mm (although I intended to) because I can't lose the 18mm end, I figured I could sell both, put in some more cash and try and get a good quality lens around the £400 mark. I really can't afford to go over £400, but don't mind buying second hand if the right thing comes along.

My problem is that I've been looking at budget lenses and don't really know what is available above the £300 mark. So, now you know the context, I would like to know what you suggest...

The criteria are simple, a fast lens f/2.8 or faster, and around 17mm-50,70 or whatever. I emphasise that in giving up 2-3 of my current lenses to buy this, I'm looking for quality, something that will deliver sharp results on my 450D.

Thanks.

 

[toto8462]

I've just realised that a Canon 17-40mm L might be in range (2nd hand), would that be decent? Would it be good for portraits? I might think 40mm isn't close enough?

 

[a1ex2001]

canon 17-40 F4 (cracking lens but only f4)

Failing that your looking at eith tamron or sigma's 17-50 F2.8's

 

[toto8462]

canon 17-40 F4 (cracking lens but only f4)

Failing that your looking at eith tamron or sigma's 17-50 F2.8's

Yea, looking at the Canon 17-40 I don't think the range is quite where I would want it to be and in honesty I'm looking for something faster than f/4.

 

[Byker28i]

Hum, why not try and get a Sigma 10-20? Around £300 but might be better than compromising on one lens.

I have the canon 10-22 which is so light it's in my bag all the time. For my main walkabout I use the 24-105

Only other thing if you just want one lens would be the EF-s 17-85

 

[Canon Bob]

I'd handover the cash in exchange for a 28-70/2.8L...forerunner of the 24-70/2.8L that's around today. Excellent build quality, good glass and will last you forever. £400 should just see you home.

Bob

 

[toto8462]

I'd handover the cash in exchange for a 28-70/2.8L...forerunner of the 24-70/2.8L that's around today. Excellent build quality, good glass and will last you forever. £400 should just see you home.

Bob

As much as that sounds nice, that doesn't help me at all at the short end. I'm at 28mm now and need something wider. I was looking for an all-in-one solution 17mm-x but i'm not sure if there is anything in that price range. I want to pitch higher than the Sigma 17-70mm solution, but probably lower than the majority of L lenses, because £400 is a firm budget.

 

[toto8462]

Hum, why not try and get a Sigma 10-20? Around £300 but might be better than compromising on one lens.

I have the canon 10-22 which is so light it's in my bag all the time. For my main walkabout I use the 24-105

Only other thing if you just want one lens would be the EF-s 17-85

I chose the Tamron 28-75 above the option of a 17-85 on the grounds of image quality, as well as the 17-85 being quite poor at 17mm (a lot of distortion etc.)

 

[DigitalRelish]

Shame about the budget because there's a nice EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 going in the For Sale section.

 

[V8burble]

Yes a nice lens Canon Bob, but no wider than the Tamron he is giving up :shrug:. Unless I misunderstand the post?

Edit:
I really must type faster LOL

 

[toto8462]

Shame about the budget because there's a nice EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 going in the For Sale section.

Nice plug. But I wouldn't spend that much on an EF-S at this time given I would like to go full frame without the hassle of shifting too much glass. No doubt though the 17-55 is an awesome lens.

 

[Canon Bob]

Yes a nice lens Canon Bob, but no wider than the Tamron he is giving up :shrug:. Unless I misunderstand the post?

Edit:
I really must type faster LOL

Nope, I mis-understood. Got confused in the numbers and read it again.
BTW..."2.8 or faster"...faster isn't an option in the zoom world.
A 17-35/2.8L would also give quality at the price but maybe a little short on the long end.

Bob

 

[TheWombat]

This comes up quite a lot.The two obvious choices are the Tamron 17-50 and the Sigma 18-50 EX Macro. Both are constant f2.8 and both are excellent lenses-comfortably within budget.If you can stretch a bit then the used Canon 17-55 f2.8 is the pick of the crop.The 17-40L is a lovely lens but just to short for my money.
Pete.

 

[RKC]

Nice plug. But I wouldn't spend that much on an EF-S at this time given I would like to go full frame without the hassle of shifting too much glass. No doubt though the 17-55 is an awesome lens.

that would mean the tamron 17-50 2.8 is not an option
tamron equivilant to efs......i think

 

[toto8462]

that would mean the tamron 17-50 2.8 is not an option
tamron equivilant to efs......i think

Hmm... this is an interesting point. I'm feeling quite confused to be honest. I'm really looking at the 17-70 range but really want image quality (hence the £400) budget...

 

[RKC]

Hmm... this is an interesting point. I'm feeling quite confused to be honest. I'm really looking at the 17-70 range but really want image quality (hence the £400) budget...

why not visit each manufacturers website and see what is available

2.8 17mm etc see if there is a current model that suits,
the 18-50 siggy is for small sensors aswell


just had a look at canon site ef 16-35 would suit your requirements but new £1000+ how much second hand, probally not the £400ish

 

[toto8462]

why not visit each manufacturers website and see what is available

2.8 17mm etc see if there is a current model that suits,
the 18-50 siggy is for small sensors aswell


just had a look at canon site ef 16-35 would suit your requirements but new £1000+ how much second hand, probally not the £400ish

Yea, I've had a look and am left quite confused. There just doesn't seem to be anything in that price range. I've looked at the Sigma 17-70mm but I think that will be a step down from the Tamron I've got at the moment. It would seem that the Canon 17-85 is the right focal range, but again, I went for the Tamron because it hands down beat it optically review after review. Hmmm...

This is tough. Maybe I should just ask people what their walk around lens is?

 

[shiunn]

I'm just wondering why hasn't anybody suggested the 18-200mm by either tamron or canon. I personally haven't read into those ranges, *** i am DYING FOR A TAMRON 28-75. hahahah
so Toto, I'm your cash cow if you're not keeping it.

p/s is it because it's not 2.8?

 

[RKC]

Yea, I've had a look and am left quite confused. There just doesn't seem to be anything in that price range. I've looked at the Sigma 17-70mm but I think that will be a step down from the Tamron I've got at the moment. It would seem that the Canon 17-85 is the right focal range, but again, I went for the Tamron because it hands down beat it optically review after review. Hmmm...

This is tough. Maybe I should just ask people what their walk around lens is?

17-85 is is my walk about lens.. i also have the tamron for low light which i absolutley adore

wonder if there is a list of old lenses that you browse and then search for second hand, mind you some third party lenses have compatibilty issues

good luck

 

[toto8462]

I'm just wondering why hasn't anybody suggested the 18-200mm by either tamron or canon. I personally haven't read into those ranges, *** i am DYING FOR A TAMRON 28-75. hahahah
so Toto, I'm your cash cow if you're not keeping it.

p/s is it because it's not 2.8?

No, the Tamron is f/2.8. There is no doubt, the guy who sold me the Tamron a couple of weeks ago is right about the Tamron, its a great lens. It's just i intended it to replace my kit lens. For many people 28mm might be fine, its just I really appreciate the widen end and don't want to lose it. Hence I'm looking for something else.

If you're interested in the Tamron 28-75mm, watch this space, it will probs be up for sale in the next couple of days or so.

 

[swag72]

Save up and buy the 17-55 EF-S. I know that it is for a crop sensor, and the age old argument people throw up is that if you're thinking of going FF then don't get it. Well......... It's 2.8 throughout and I use it as a walkabout lens. A cracking lens with great IQ. I could not recommend it enough.

 

[toto8462]

Hmm... I have been considering just going for the Tamron 17-50 f.2.8, but I'm a little worried the image quality wont be much of a step up over the 18-55 IS. Anyone got experience with these two lenses?

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Hmm... I have been considering just going for the Tamron 17-50 f.2.8, but I'm a little worried the image quality wont be much of a step up over the 18-55 IS. Anyone got experience with these two lenses?

Don't have any experience of Canon kit lenses (being a Nikon shooter), but the Tamron is a fantastic lens for the money. If the Canon and Nikon 18-55 kit lenses are broadly comparable then you will notice quite a difference in iq.

Nikonwise there's not a whole lot in it between the Tamron and the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8, which is three times the price.

 

[seriousrikk]

Nice plug. But I wouldn't spend that much on an EF-S at this time given I would like to go full frame without the hassle of shifting too much glass. No doubt though the 17-55 is an awesome lens.

IMO you would be better getting glass that suits you now rather than compromising because you want to go full frame in the future.

 

[toto8462]

IMO you would be better getting glass that suits you now rather than compromising because you want to go full frame in the future.

Yea, I've decided that I'm happy with the Tamron itself, so what I really need is a wide-angle and I'm prepared to stump up the cash for it. Therefore I'm going to get a Sigma 10-20 and be done with it.

Thanks all.