Tamron 28-75 F2.8 VS Canon EF-S 17-55 VS Tamron 24-70 F2.8

Hi All,

I have a Canon 60D and I have a EF-S 17-55 F2.8.

I am very happy with my 17-55 but sometimes i fell like it would be great if the focal length was a bit more longer.

I came across the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 and the reviews says that its great for people with 1.6X body on a budget, which I am. also i am considering the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 which the review says is great lens and is recommended by Photozone.

I want to use this lens as a general walk around lens so 24mm of 28mm not being wide enough does not applies.

The Tamron 24-70 and 28-75 are both Full Frame compatible but the Canon EF-F 17-55 is not. (Not looking to upgrade for a while).

I can vouch for the 17-55 and its great. I would like to get some feedback about the other two lenses.

Also before anyone says Canon 24-70 F2.8 (I or II) .I simply cant afford them.

Also Tamron 28-75 F2.8 is around $350 , the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 is around a $1000 mark. The 17-55 I got for $850.

Thanks

I haven't yet tried to dig up any information on the lenses. First things first. Are you planning on replacing your 17-55, or getting a second lens. 24 isn't very wide on a 1.6X crop body, and 28 even less so. If you're looking to replace the lens, I'm not sure these are ideal choices. Luckily, you can see how 24mm or 28mm feels on your existing lens. Then imagine not being able to go wider for landscapes, indoor shots, anything wide.

The 28-75 will have lens creep if you leave it hanging (not a deal breaker). The focus will hunt more so than most Canons do in lower light, and the noise from the auto focus motor is louder than the Canon stuff but more quiet/muffled when compared to the Tamron 17-50 if you have ever used it. The pictures that come from the 28-75 are solid though. What is your price range? There might be some better options.

I am thinking of replacing the 17-55 (if there's a better replacement).
Also landscape photography is something I don't do at all. I would be using the new lens for streets,potraits and indoor etc. you have to consider that I am not a professional photographer.
My range would be max 1000$ish.
I currently also have a canon 18-200 f3.5-5.6 if I ever needed landscape shots.
Thanks

Your 17-55 Canon lens is pure gold and nothing will work better or easier than that on your crop body. If you wanted to add a lens, you could consider the Canon 85mm/1.8 prime, this is a "fast" lens, very quick to focus and very good IQ. If you want a little separation from your "street" subjects and still be inconspicuous, there isn't a better lens than the 85mm on a crop. This option will set you back less than $500.

A different option would be to sell you 18-200 and buy the 70-200/f4 and keep your 17-55. You would have a high IQ, very usable twin lens kit. This would cost you around that $1000 mark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve U

A different option would be to sell you 18-200 and buy the 70-200/f4 and keep your 17-55. You would have a high IQ, very usable twin lens kit. This would cost you around that $1000 mark.

---

Thanks Steve, 70-200 sounds like a good idea.
My only question is that would the missing focal length between 17-55 and 70-200 be missed ?

I doubt that you will miss the 56-199mm range much. You can usually zoom a little with your feet.
One option to replace the 17-55 without giving up image quality would be the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6, but you would give up the max aperture of 2.8.
I do like the 15-85mm as a walkaround lens, but it really depends on what you shoot most. The 17-55 gives you a huge advantage in lower light, and more background blur when shooting wide open. You mentioned "indoor", so I would not recommend giving up the 17-55 for another lens.
For portrait, the 85mm f/1.8 that Steve mentioned would be a great addition. If you want a longer lens, the 70-200 or 70-300 lenses offer nice choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DSLR_Newbie

would the missing focal length between 17-55 and 70-200 be missed ?

---

no

I don't miss it. I used the 17-55 and 70-200 and never missed the 15 mm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clemmb

no

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busted Knuckles

I don't miss it. I used the 17-55 and 70-200 and never missed the 15 mm.

---

I know I was probably a bit of a smart ass with my answer:rolleyes:, my apologies, but a few short steps will make up for the 15mm pretty easily. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busted Knuckles

I don't miss it. I used the 17-55 and 70-200 and never missed the 15 mm.

---

Ditto me, exactly. You will never notice any "gap" from 56 to 69. That would be a great combo.

You would have to pry the 17-55 out of my cold dead hands, because I love the bright f/2.8 in this mm range.
You will use it inside a lot so you need the wide aperature when you are not in the daylight.
You will use it for portraits, so you need the wide aperature to isolate the subject & blur the background.
And the good IQ is obviously going to be something you want for all shooting.

I had the same concern when I moved from the 15-85 to the 17-55. I also have the 70-200 f/4. I have not missed the 15mm.

Eric

Thank you all for your help.

So its settled...I am keeping the 17-55 and ordering the 70-200.