$300 budget. Which lens??

<p>1. Tamron sp af aspherical xr di 28-75mm 1:2.8 macro af</p>

<p>

<h2>2. Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [iF]</h2>

<p>or</p>

<p>

<h2>3. Canon EF 50mm f/1.4</h2>

<p>I'm tired of my stock 28-135mm lens on my 40d and need something better/faster but something that wont break the bank.</p>

<p>THanks</p>

</p>

</p>

..."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...?

<p>50 1.4!!! Def</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>#1 for weddings.</p>

2 as the most versatile of them all on a crop body. If it's more of a low light work horse, then 3.

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><em>When it comes to option #3, it's a matter of do you value low-light performance against versatility?</em><br>

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</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses.<br>

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.<br>

I'm looking for better bokeh (the reason for the 2.8) and sharper images.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <strong>quality</strong> of the out of focus parts, <strong>only</strong>.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Wow. A whole wedding on a non-IS 17-50mm. I applaud your self confidence.</p>

<p>Ok if you're going to sell the lens you have then there's no point in getting just a 50mm.</p>

<p>So is my current lens better for weddings then the ones i'm interested in?</p>

<p>No. The Tamron beats your current lens for this purpose IMO.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>50m 1.4 is awesome, detail shots, low light.<br>

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.</p>

<p>Answering your question literally, the best lens of the three you mention in terms of <strong><em>"better bokeh and sharper images"</em></strong> 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 . . . <br>

<br>

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].<br>

<br>

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

<br>

WW<br>

<br>

<br>

</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>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 - <a href="http://mooostudios.com/India_general/other.htm">http://mooostudios.com/India_general/other.htm</a> . all but the last image were taken with that lens (the first 5 are from a wedding).</p>

<p>in addition, a prime will sharpen your vision. </p>

<p>for weddings... 1..</p>

<p>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</p>

<p ><strong ><em >"for weddings... 1.."</em></strong></p>

<p ><strong ><em > </em></strong></p>

<p >Mark, why specifically do you recommend the <em >Tamron sp af aspherical xr di 28-75mm 1:2.8 macro af,</em> to replace the 28 to 135 and for use on a 40D, as your choice of the three lenses mentioned?</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >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? </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Thanks,</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>The Tammy 17-50mm, hands-down, for that 40D.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2654/4178003098_2497680a44_b.jpg</p>

<p>Best of luck to you.<br>

CE Nelson<br>

<blockquote>

<p>Mark, why specifically do you recommend the <em>Tamron sp af aspherical xr di 28-75mm 1:2.8 macro af,</em> to replace the 28 to 135 and for use on a 40D, as your choice of the three lenses mentioned?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Thank you for responding to my question, Mark.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p><strong><em>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.</em></strong></p>

<p>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.</p>