$300 budget. Which lens??

Discussion in 'Wedding and Event' started by plba1126, Dec 16, 2009.

  1. 1. Tamron sp af aspherical xr di 28-75mm 1:2.8 macro af
    2. Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF]
    or
    3. Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
    I'm tired of my stock 28-135mm lens on my 40d and need something better/faster but something that wont break the bank.
    THanks
     
  2. ..."something better/faster but something that wont break the bank..."
    <p>A generally untenable position. Quality glass costs money, Pietro. What do you feel is lacking? Your 3 choices are all of different focal lengths and one is a prime. You need to figure out what it is you're missing. Also, what do you mean by 'better'? "Better" is not a good enough description of lens attribute. Do you mean sharpness, contrast, bokeh, build...?
     
  3. 50 1.4!!! Def
     
  4. I'm curious if it matters what type of photography it's for? Meaning, I need one too, for shooting in dark churches where flash is not allowed. I'm told I need the 50mm, 1.4 or 2.8 for that. So, if you're doing what I'm doing, my guess would be #3.
     
  5. #1 for weddings.
     
  6. 2 as the most versatile of them all on a crop body. If it's more of a low light work horse, then 3.
     
  7. You're comparing two lenses (#1 and #3) that are made for full-frame to a crop-frame lens (#2). Basically, #2 is the exact counterpart to #1 for crop-frame. On the 40D, I could only recommend option #2.
    When it comes to option #3, it's a matter of do you value low-light performance against versatility? You will sacrifice alot of useability if your only lens is a 50mm on a crop-body. On the 40D, the 50mm f1.4 is a one-trick pony. It's basically a great portrait lens and nothing else. It's not the same lens it was on 35mm film. This is why Nikon is reintroducing the classic 50 as a 35mm f/1.8. We can expect a Canon equivalent soon, I think, followed by f/1.4 versions by both companies.
     
  8. When it comes to option #3, it's a matter of do you value low-light performance against versatility?
    What about great bokeh? If they already have the 28-135, then I don't see the point in getting the 17-50. Get the 50mm 1.4 then save up and buy the 24-70 2.8
     
  9. Thanks for the responses.
    However I did leave out a couple of important details: I am trying to sell my current lens and use the money to buy one of these lenses; and I shoot weddings.
    I'm looking for better bokeh (the reason for the 2.8) and sharper images.
     
  10. If this is going to be your only lens (risky!) and you shoot weddings it has to be the Tamron 17 -50 2.8. Most weddings shots on a crop body will be taken within this zoom range.
     
  11. Don't confuse a fast lens with bokeh or with shallow DOF. All three are different. When you say you want better bokeh, you are talking about the quality of the out of focus parts, only.
    Also, if you are going to sell the original lens, you would almost 'have' to get the 17-50mm, since you wouldn't have a general purpose zoom at all. The 28-75mm would not be the ideal range. And the 50mm, if that is your only lens, would be limiting.
     
  12. Based on your current info, I would get the 17-50 and then start adding a few more things as budget allows. It will give you a reasonably fast fixed aperture and the variety of focal lengths plus the description on Tamron's site seems to indicate some good close focus abilities. I think it too limiting just to have a 50 on the crop body unless you keep your other lens. Ultimately you have to decide based on your exact needs.
     
  13. Wow. A whole wedding on a non-IS 17-50mm. I applaud your self confidence.
     
  14. Ok if you're going to sell the lens you have then there's no point in getting just a 50mm.
     
  15. So is my current lens better for weddings then the ones i'm interested in?
     
  16. No. The Tamron beats your current lens for this purpose IMO.
     
  17. 50m 1.4 is awesome, detail shots, low light.
    tamron is great for group shots and dressing room shots, because of it being wider. I dont know how you could do weddings without either to be honest.
     
  18. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    Answering your question literally, the best lens of the three you mention in terms of "better bokeh and sharper images" is the EF50mmF/1.4, but that would be a very silly choice of lens to “replace” the zoom you are selling. . . the way I understand the question is: you have a 40D and use the 28 to 135 as the main working lens at Weddings . . .

    If you sell the 28 to 135 lens, then the best all round “main working lens” to get, would be the Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF].

    What other lenses and cameras are in your Wedding kit - as that bears on the decision also.

    WW
     
  19. if you want just one lens for weddings i'd keep the zoom but if you want to add one i'd definatelly go for the 50mm 1.4. it makes beautiful partrait and creates intimacy with people you photograph. here are some examples with that lens - http://mooostudios.com/India_general/other.htm . all but the last image were taken with that lens (the first 5 are from a wedding).
    in addition, a prime will sharpen your vision.
     
  20. for weddings... 1..
    there are more ways to create bokeh than using aperture. and you don't want to just have your portfolio full of 50mm shots..... i won't even go there
     
  21. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    "for weddings... 1.."

    Mark, why specifically do you recommend the Tamron sp af aspherical xr di 28-75mm 1:2.8 macro af, to replace the 28 to 135 and for use on a 40D, as your choice of the three lenses mentioned?
    The thrust of my question is: do you not think that the wide at 28mm is restrictive for the main working lens, on an APS-C body?
    Thanks,
    WW
     
  22. The Tammy 17-50mm, hands-down, for that 40D.
    The 28-75mm is a full-frame lens, meaning it will be too long (in my opinion) on a 1.x sensor. Yes, I've owned the latter, shot it on a D70s and loved it, even shot a wedding with it (whence cometh my opinion on wedding usage), and would recommend it heartily if you were shooting a full-frame body.
    The 17-50mm is wicked sharp for the buck. I shoot the Promaster-branded version (it is a Tamron lens) and have no complaints. See sample image below, taken with a Canon 7D on 11/28/2009.
    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2654/4178003098_2497680a44_b.jpg
    Best of luck to you.
    CE Nelson
     
  23. Mark, why specifically do you recommend the Tamron sp af aspherical xr di 28-75mm 1:2.8 macro af, to replace the 28 to 135 and for use on a 40D, as your choice of the three lenses mentioned?​
    although i like wide angle shots during weddings, a long reach lens is more useful in my opinion. so if i could only have 1 lens, i would rather have it toward the longer side instead of the wider side.
    I can always try to compensate for a wider angle by going further back...but unless i'm planning to be on the couple's face all day long, i won't be able to compensate for a lack of a longer lens.
     
  24. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    Thank you for responding to my question, Mark.
    WW
     
  25. I can always try to compensate for a wider angle by going further back...but unless i'm planning to be on the couple's face all day long, i won't be able to compensate for a lack of a longer lens.
    But by that logic (having to work with only a single lens)... it's usually easier to move forward than back because of those pesky walls.
     
  26. But by that logic (having to work with only a single lens)... it's usually easier to move forward than back because of those pesky walls.​
    for you as a photographer..but then again this business is about customer service.. if i were the client and my photographer is on my face all day long i would be annoyed. well..i would be pissed first that he only have 1 lens to worry about...but that is a whole different matter.
    if i couldn't move back cuz of a wall, then i'll just forgo the shot..
    if you gave me a choice...a wide angle shot, or give the couple their space during their wedding, which one you think i'm gonna choose.
    some photographers still think that capturing a shot is the most important thing...i tend to think that giving the client a good experience during their day is the most important thing.
     
  27. for you as a photographer..but then again this business is about customer service.​
    True. But I just assumed you were disregarding all aspects of customer service as soon as you said, "so if i could only have 1 lens".
     
  28. the 1 lens was a criteria set by the OP for the scenario. so you kind of have to work based on that rule whether it would happen in real life or not.
     
  29. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    I understand Mark T's responses and his emphasis on the importance of personal space for the B&G.
    It goes to the consideration of a balance and mixture of Photographic (output) Styles and Personal Client Management & Service one provides – I understand that, but I see a flaw in the line of argument.
    I assume that I would necessarily work "closer" than Mark T., but that does not mean I am "in their face" but just that I would generally work a little closer, and my B&G will expect that, in a lot of cases that is why they chose me, and my work.
    But also I think I might work with more "air" around the framing of my shots than Mark might - one can always crop later, and I do, and a lot.
    I don't forgo many shots. I have had the experience of very tight Churches (small Chapels) where a 24mm on a 5D was necessary to get any reasonable framing of the B&G with elements of the wedding Gown, the Wedding Party and the ambient surroundings.
    So I am of the opinion that I would like a wide to short telephoto zoom (17 to 50); rather than normal to telephoto zoom (28 to 75), if I were only allowed one zoom lens.
    And I am also of the opinion that as a general line of argument a wide to short telephoto main working lens is a better choice, and a better answer for this hypothetical “one lens suits all” question.
    As a practical example . . .
    1. if I only had a 17 to 50, I can always shoot at 50mm and crop later to get the resultant FoV of a 75mm lens. There will not be much loss
    2. I don’t HAVE to be in the face of the B&G simple because I have a 17mm lens, I still have the choice of camera vantage point.
    3. If we get to a really tight place, maybe a shooting distance of 10 ft or less and a Wedding group of four or six, I don't have to forgo any Full Length or Three Quarter shots of the Whole Wedding party (and importantly the very expensive dresses), simply because I could not back up any further.
    I see these three points predominately being all about customer service, not the Photographer's need to get the shot.
    I therefore conclude that if a Photographer were only allowed to choose one of the three lenses the OP cites, and for it to cover a wedding, on a 40D:
    The best lens for both the Photographer’s logistics for all situations and also for best lens for ultimate customer service, i.e. to provide the broadest range of coverage, no matter what “style”: is the 17 to 55, and not the 28 to 75.
    WW
     
  30. I owned 17-50 and it was a great lens a bit slow AF in low light but overall great lens
     
  31. i would say that the best way to decide which way to go is to go back and look at your pics...and see in which range you shoot the most..
    i'm looking at my past 10 weddings, and it seems to be that although many of my favorites are in the wider range...i would say from a quick glance that at least 60% of my shots are above 40mm... so obviously i would go for the long one..
    but you should look at your shooting style...and see which range do you shoot the most from.
     
  32. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    I think that it is good logic, too, and applicable to any one specific user. History is a good guide, but it does not always allow for new or changing situations.

    I also think it is very difficult to shoot all Weddings and allow for a reasonable range of conditions which might arise, with only one lens, (or just one camera), what ever that lens is. Because as mentioned previously, there will, inevitably be some shots: avoided; missed or culled because of the restriction of only one lens.

    And I think we (I) wandered off on a bit of a theoretical / hypothetical tangent . . . which is not necessarily bad . . . There are other threads about what “only one lens would you choose”

    But it would be nice to hear from Pietro, to clear up the assumption whether or not, that there is really only ONE lens in the Wedding kit. If not, what are the other lens(es) ?

    WW
     
  33. Also, what country is he in. In some places they don't make the big circus we make here in the US and a few basic pictures cover the job nicely. Also, in some specific areas of countries, even in the US, weddings are much less complicated than those done in the big metro areas. I'd like to know more about his specific application to consider the whole thing better, although my answer would't change.
     
  34. Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 for sure
     
  35. Just picked up #2 today for $325 off craigslist. Thanks for all the help everyone!
     

Share This Page