What should be my next Lens?

[alexxk]

I have a Canon T3i with the Kit Lens 18-55 IS, Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS, Canon EF 50mm 1.8.

I was thinking about getting either the:

Tamron 17-50 2.8 for $500 (This would replace my Kit Lens)

Tokina 11-16 2.8 for $724

Canon EF 16-35 2.8/f USM for $1400 (This is a bit expensive for me and it would require more time to come up with the money)

I need a good, sharp wide angle lens since my Kit Lens is just OK.

What do you guys think?

[Designer Dale]

Just stay away from the Tokina in the 12-24 f/4 version. There is a persistent problem with the ribbon cable that controls the lens aperture. It can crack and lock the aperture giving an error message. The 11-16 might be OK.

Dale

[alexxk]

Originally Posted by Designer Dale

Just stay away from the Tokina in the 12-24 f/4 version. There is a persistent problem with the ribbon cable that controls the lens aperture. It can crack and lock the aperture giving an error message. The 11-16 might be OK.

Dale

Thanks for the tip man..

[Laird Knox]

The Tokina 11-16 is a fantastic lens. I've even used it on a full frame camera, although only at 16mm.

[nburwell]

What do you usually photograph? If you're more often than not shooting in low light, then I would definitely recommend you go with a fast lens. Some recommendations:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 - It's a bit pricey, but it's an overfall fantastic lens for APS-C sensor DSLR's like your T3i.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L - It's not as pricey as the EF 16-35 or the 17-55 I mentioned above, but it's aperture is only f/4. However, if you shoot mainly landscapes and camera is mounted on tripod, this would be a great lens to to replace your kit lens.

[alexxk]

Originally Posted by nburwell

What do you usually photograph? If you're more often than not shooting in low light, then I would definitely recommend you go with a fast lens. Some recommendations:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 - It's a bit pricey, but it's an overfall fantastic lens for APS-C sensor DSLR's like your T3i.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L - It's not as pricey as the EF 16-35 or the 17-55 I mentioned above, but it's aperture is only f/4. However, if you shoot mainly landscapes and camera is mounted on tripod, this would be a great lens to to replace your kit lens.

Since I'm new to photography, I'm still in the trying to find out what I like to photography the most. I do however like landscapes a lot as well as night city lights.. but in general I like everything actually :/

[aerok]

Originally Posted by alexxk

Since I'm new to photography, I'm still in the trying to find out what I like to photography the most. I do however like landscapes a lot as well as night city lights.. but in general I like everything actually :/

The kit isn't that bad so don't bother with the Tamron unless you shoot often indoors. Then again, the 50mm is ok for indoor pictures.

I would also suggest the Tonica as having such a wide angle is really fun when shooting landscape. Also think about investing on a very sturdy tripod!

[alexxk]

Originally Posted by aerok

The kit isn't that bad so don't bother with the Tamron unless you shoot often indoors. Then again, the 50mm is ok for indoor pictures.

I would also suggest the Tonica as having such a wide angle is really fun when shooting landscape. Also think about investing on a very sturdy tripod!

Yes, I got one... it arrived last week. Manfrotto 190XPROB with a Manfrotto 496RC2 ballhead.

I hope I did a good job with the Tripod hehe..

Yes, I'm leaning towards this Tokina lens and keeping the Kit Lens.

[aerok]

Originally Posted by alexxk

Yes, I got one... it arrived last week. Manfrotto 190XPROB with a Manfrotto 496RC2 ballhead.

I hope I did a good job with the Tripod hehe..

Yes, I'm leaning towards this Tokina lens and keeping the Kit Lens.

I bought the Tamron to take some night club photography, amazing little lens but so is the Tokina.

[cupcakes2000]

I have a Sigma 10-20 mm wide lens. It's pretty nice for landscapes, although at f/4 it's not very fast. It's well recommended though, and not to expensive.

[Prodo123]

If you're willing to drop the cash on a 16-35mm f/2.8L mark I, which you shouldn't get because it's really soft, then go for the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8.

[VirtualRain]

Originally Posted by Prodo123

If you're willing to drop the cash on a 16-35mm f/2.8L mark I, which you shouldn't get because it's really soft, then go for the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8.

+1... it's the best lens on an APS-C camera. Sadly, there's no equivalent on full frame, so everyone with a crop body should be using this and doing a happy dance. I remember when I got mine (on a T1i at the time), the improvement in what I could do was impressive with the f2.8 and IS combo. And the optics were really good. Not that this should matter, but it does... the 17-55 also made the Rebel body seam like a real camera after I took the toy kit lens off.

Edit: here are a few photos taken with that lens on a T1i...

These two were taken with the camera resting on my bag...




These are hand-held at f2.8 and 1/8th second and 1/30th second respectively...

[alexxk]

The problem with the Canon 17-55mm is that it's no future proof for me. I intend in 2-3 years or maybe less to purchase a 5D Camera and this Lens won't work on it.

The Tokina will fit but I know it won't work well using 11mm but I read that at around 13-16mm it will work fine, so that's a plus for me.

I looked at photos from Flickr with the Tokina and there are really cool landscapes photos there..

[aerok]

Originally Posted by alexxk

The problem with the Canon 17-55mm is that it's no future proof for me. I intend in 2-3 years or maybe less to purchase a 5D Camera and this Lens won't work on it.

The Tokina will fit but I know it won't work well using 11mm but I read that at around 13-16mm it will work fine, so that's a plus for me.

I looked at photos from Flickr with the Tokina and there are really cool landscapes photos there..

Yup hence it's better for you to buy the Tokina and if ever you want to replace your kit lens, you could buy the 24-105 F4 lens that is compatible with the 5D

[ocabj]

Originally Posted by aerok

Yup hence it's better for you to buy the Tokina and if ever you want to replace your kit lens, you could buy the 24-105 F4 lens that is compatible with the 5D

The 24-105 is such a good value right now. You can get one for $700 or less on the used market because there's a huge glut of them from people trying to dump them after buying kits with the 24-105 included.

I actually bought one last month because of the price drop, and sold my 24-70 f/2.8L.

[Prodo123]

Originally Posted by alexxk

The problem with the Canon 17-55mm is that it's no future proof for me. I intend in 2-3 years or maybe less to purchase a 5D Camera and this Lens won't work on it.

The Tokina will fit but I know it won't work well using 11mm but I read that at around 13-16mm it will work fine, so that's a plus for me.

I looked at photos from Flickr with the Tokina and there are really cool landscapes photos there..

The 17-55 is in such popular demand that it will retain its value well. You can sell it when you think it's time to go full frame and still get a good portion of your money back.
The Tokina is a good lens other than the AF/MF switch which I find to be rather flimsy. I'd still take the 17-55 over it.

[VirtualRain]

Originally Posted by alexxk

The problem with the Canon 17-55mm is that it's no future proof for me. I intend in 2-3 years or maybe less to purchase a 5D Camera and this Lens won't work on it.

Lens values (for good desirable glass) hold remarkably well. I think I purchased my 17-55 for about $1000 from Adorama and sold it 2 years later on CraigsList for $900 when I went full frame. Compromising now on what's best for you in order to save an insignificant amount seems irrational.

[alexxk]

The Canon 17-55 is still $1000 from Amazon.

Hnn.. I have until end of February to decide... I will consider this lens as well, although the Tamron is twice cheaper. Is the canon that much better?

Is there much differece between 16 and 17mm? I liked the Tokina for being such a wide lens with 11-16.

if I buy the Tokina 11-16 for $600 and the Tamron 17-55 for $500 that would be $100 more expensive then the Canon 17-55 for $1000. Then I can try to sell my 18-55 and what $100 bucks?

Man, this is hard to decide...

[Designer Dale]

If you want to shoot full frame in the near future then you might be best to just bite the bullet and not buy anything. Bank all you can and go for the camera you want. Most of the full frame lenses for Canon are the L lenses and they will all set you back $1000+ a pop. stocking up on them now just keeps pushing your camera purchase down the road.

Dale

[VirtualRain]

Originally Posted by alexxk

The Canon 17-55 is still $1000 from Amazon.

Hnn.. I have until end of February to decide... I will consider this lens as well, although the Tamron is twice cheaper. Is the canon that much better?

Is there much differece between 16 and 17mm? I liked the Tokina for being such a wide lens with 11-16.

if I buy the Tokina 11-16 for $600 and the Tamron 17-55 for $500 that would be $100 more expensive then the Canon 17-55 for $1000. Then I can try to sell my 18-55 and what $100 bucks?

Man, this is hard to decide...

Back when I was looking into this, I considered the Tamron as well, but at least a couple years ago, the Tamron with VC was really bad compared to the Canon, while the non-stabilized version was very sharp. I'm not sure if that's changed. I would read some reviews if I were you.

In terms of ultra-wide... I also owned a 10-22mm lens and although it was fun, I rarely used it. However a couple of mm at the wide end can make a difference. It really comes down to what you want to shoot. The problem with 10-14mm is that you end up with ridiculous amounts of sky and or foreground when using it outside... To the point where you need to almost crop it to the point it looks like a stitched panorama... In which case, you may as well just do a panorama with a normal wide angle in the first place. Where it helps is shooting indoors or in courtyards... Cathedrals, castles, etc. Now I have a 24mm wide angle on my full frame which is equivalent to 15mm on an APS-C and I find it plenty wide.

If you want a really good walk around lens also consider the Canon 15-85 it apparently has great optics, IS, and a very nice focal range. The only problem is it does not have a sexy max aperture.

The good thing is, you have a lot of choices... Look at what you shoot and what's holding you back, or more importantly, what new gear might get you excited and motivated to get out and shoot more. But I think one mistake a lot of people make early on is to think they really need the entire focal range covered from 10-400mm even if they accomplish it initially with very mediocre glass. You're much better off figuring out what focal lengths are most important to you and splurge on better lenses there.

[nburwell]

Originally Posted by alexxk

The Canon 17-55 is still $1000 from Amazon.

Hnn.. I have until end of February to decide... I will consider this lens as well, although the Tamron is twice cheaper. Is the canon that much better?

Is there much differece between 16 and 17mm? I liked the Tokina for being such a wide lens with 11-16.

if I buy the Tokina 11-16 for $600 and the Tamron 17-55 for $500 that would be $100 more expensive then the Canon 17-55 for $1000. Then I can try to sell my 18-55 and what $100 bucks?

Man, this is hard to decide...

If you don't mind used, I'm sure you could pick up a second hand 17-55mm on eBay or even on Amazon Marketplace for below $1,000.

[alexxk]

Thanks guys for all the responses. I'm taking every reply into consideration. Like I said I have a couple of weeks to decide..

[mustang_dvs]

Why not rent a couple of the contenders, for 2-3 days, from LensRentals?

All told, it may set you back $100, but you'll know exactly what you're getting, when you do decide to buy.

I think it's a wise choice to avoid buying any more EF-S lenses -- lenses are an investment, bodies are disposable.

[kaldezar]

Originally Posted by alexxk

I have a Canon T3i with the Kit Lens 18-55 IS, Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS, Canon EF 50mm 1.8.

I was thinking about getting either the:

Tamron 17-50 2.8 for $500 (This would replace my Kit Lens)

Tokina 11-16 2.8 for $724

Canon EF 16-35 2.8/f USM for $1400 (This is a bit expensive for me and it would require more time to come up with the money)

I need a good, sharp wide angle lens since my Kit Lens is just OK.

What do you guys think?

Well I went for the Tamron to replace the kit lens, very satisfied with this choice, very sharp, excellent bokeh (I like portraits!). I rented the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L lens for a weekend and that was stunning but of course a lot of money, the tamron comes close to Canon's L lens optical standard at about half the price!

[jdavtz]

Do you find your 18-55 lens isn't wide enough, isn't sharp enough, or both?

I'd suggest the 17-55/2.8 IS (buy used, then sell for almost the same price as you bought it for if/when you go full-frame) IF the problem is "not sharp enough" ... it won't help much with "not wide enough."

I'm afraid I can't help with the current wide-angle options on APS-C... I'm fully switched to Fuji X-series now and waiting for their 14mm lens.