Which Lens?

[monicagivens]

I have a Canon XT. I am wanting to get a SHARPER image than the kit lense.

I would LOVE to get a 18-55 IS lens, but those are just too much for me since

I am about to spend a ton on a Tablet PC. I want to stay around $500 give or

take $100. Now the question:

 

Would I be better to spend the money on a

 

A) Tamron SP 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD

 

B) Tamron17-35mm f/2.8-4.0 Di LD IF Lens

 

C) Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM Lens

 

D)Splurge a little more and get Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens.

 

 

I am not doing anything but taking family event photos such as parties,

weddings (which would otherwise not have a photographer), and general

portraits of my kids and family members. I am hoping to get into photography

classes and HOPEFULLY work as an assistant to a photographer (wedding or

portrait), so I would like somethign that would be able to grow with me as I

learn. The next investment will be upgrading the camera but I will be staying

with a Canon.

 

Thanks for the Help!

[primeimages]

Since you do portraiture and weddings and have a tight budget for lenses, go with prime lenses for the meantime....say a 50mm f1.8 and a 85mm f1.8. I'm sure you'll love the output...and the cost of owning these fixed focal lenses.

[picturesque]

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 plus the 50mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8.

[picturesque]

I meant to say that the primes can come later. You can shoot whole events with the 17-50mm but having the wider apertures of the primes will come in handy.

[cariad]

I agree with Nadine :) I think you will do great with those. Or you can splurge and get the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS which should cover all those ranges in one lens. With the IS you won't need any 1.8 lenses :) so you might actually come out better or close to buying all those lenses.

[matt_k1]

I would seriously recommend that you spend the money and invest in the better glass, such as the 17-55mm 2.8IS. <p>

Good glass never goes out of style and you will be using it probably longer than you have your camera and definately long after that Tablet PC is ancient history.<p>

You may save a few hundred bucks now, but I'll bet you that in a year or two you'll be looking to upgrade that cheaper lens and then you'll end up spending the same amount or maybe more money in the long run.<p>

[karl_borowski]

Umm howabout a prime? I think that any amount of "zooming" between 28mm, 50mm, and 80/100mm (35mm SLR lens sizes) is best done with a two-footed human-tripod dolly.

[marike1]

<p>The Tamron is said to be an excellent lens based on reviews, samples, MTF scores,

etc. On a budget, it is hard to beat. I don't usually recommend third-party lenses as

dedicated lenses tend to be so good, but this lens is an exception as you get a 2.8 lens

with great sharpness in a small (67mm), light package </p>

 

<p>I was recently considering this lens, and ended up getting the more costly Nikon

17-55 2.8, but on your budget I wouldn't hesitate to get this lens. You can read a lens

test <a href="http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_1750_28/

index.htm">here</a>.</p>

 

<p>If you were shooting with a 5D, I'd say get the 17-40L. If you think you might

upgrade to a FF soon, the 17-40L would a great choice for a ultra-wide zoom. You'd still

need a better normal zoom, but the ultra-wide part of your kit would be solid.</p>

[bruce_rubenstein___nyc]

Unless you're an NFL linebacker, you aren't zooming with your feet on a crowded dace floor. I know a number wedding shooters who are using the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and it's a very sharp lens. The biggest difference between the Tamron and the Caonon 17-55/2.8, besides IS, is the build quality. If you do zoom with your feet through a crowd, and use your camera as a battering ram, the Canon will probably last longer.

[William Michael]

You outline your purposes as general at this time and to assist at weddings in the future.

 

I have had many students is the same position, and not wishing to raise a zoom vs prime debate, I think your money would be better spent on primes.

 

On a budget the value for money apropos sharpness is a `no brainer`.

 

Granted, a good zoom, for a Professional Wedding Application is also a `no brainer`, in which case I would suggest the best value for money is Canon L series and to seriously consider the the F2.8L series over the F4L.

 

But your question states you are not there yet.

 

Long term you will not regret the value of a fast (consumer) prime in your lens kit, however a lesser quality zoom might be a limitation.

 

I would look at the 50mmF1.4, 50mmF1.8, 85mm F1.4, and 28mmF1.8, after analysing where on the focal length of your zoom you are most at.

 

I note also you want to `grow and learn` primes are very good teachers, (Sorry, I said I would not raise that debate)

 

WW

[edsel_adams]

Never assume that newer/better gear will cause some lighting-bolt like break-thru in your work. Only books or class rooms do that.

 

Especially in the areas of optics. In the portrait studio we take a multi thousand dollar lens, and cover it with an multi hundred dollar "soft focus" filter. Sharpness, in people pictures does not help make things more charming. In fact people look best less sharp.

 

 

In practical terms for flash work at weddings, there is little difference between lenses once they are stopped down 2-3 stops from wide. If you shoot w/o flash, and wide open all the time, by all means get the latest/fastest glass there is. If not, forget about it your kit lens is just fine.

 

 

In fact, an old "soft" lens makes things appear more romantic when you think about it. Press on with the gear you have, and study the work of masters of this trade. I attend WPPI conventions, and the print competitions humble us all.

 

 

 

Try printing an 8x10 from a kit lens at F8, and the same from a big dollar zoom at F8. The sharpness edge, the more expensive glass has will be barely noticeable to you, invisible to most clients.

[steve_hovland]

Try shooting in aperture mode stopped down one stop to get into the sweet spot of the lens.

 

Use a high ISO and use fill flash. If you don't have a shoe flash get some kind of ttl unit from Sunpak, which are good and cheap.

 

Join your local PPA (ppa.com) chapter and learn from the presentations.

[greg stuckey - australia]

Hi Monica,

 

I have used the Tamron SP 17-50 f/2.8. I find it to be a great little lens and an excellent upgrade for the kit glass. Some things to remember. The 17mm end appears little wider than the canon 17mm rated focal lengths which is a bonus. The lens although can't be used on a full frame sensor, is suitable for the 20/30D 1.6 sensor. The focus speed is good and dosen't hunt much in lower light situations. It is a little noisy compared to a USM motor. One other thing to remember, it is not internal focus (ie the lens gets longer an shorter when you zoom) this means the rear element moves. Not a problem I hear you say - it means that you need to be mindful that any dust on the rear element can be forced into your camera by the air that gets sucked in and blown out by the lens getting longer and shorter. This just means you need to be a little more dust aware than normal. The other (better) lenses mentioned are great, you get better bang for your buck in terms of quality performance with primes, but as your learning, a lens in the standard zoom range may help you frame more images in between holding the reflector a little more to the right thanks!

Good luck

Greg

[steve_hovland]

Here's a followup to my comment about using a cheap ttl flash to improve your pictures.

 

This is shot with a Sunpak 355 (around $80, maybe less), with the camera manually set for 1 stop less than ambient, so the flash is about 50%.

 

If a lot of your pictures are fuzzy you may want to look at your shooting technique- perhaps your shutter speeds are too low.

[monicagivens]

Thanks for all the input! I am learning all the time, and am trying to improve my shooting techniques. I know a lense won't fix it all, but I am at least hoping it will improve a bit. My problem seems to be when a photo is taken in good light and in focus, the lines just are still not as crisp as I would like to see them. If I step up to a good lense and see I am having a problem still, with no imporovement, then I definately know its ME.

 

I REALLY appreciate all the help and suggestion you all are providing me! I will probably have alot more of these questions in the future, since I don't have a local mentor yet (just moved).

 

Thanks Again!

[steve_hovland]

How are you judging this?

 

Perhaps your monitor is giving you a false impression.

 

Take a closer look at your sharpening technique and try the different options.

 

I often like edge sharpening for people pictures because it doesn't make the skin tone grainy. On the other hand, smart sharp with 3-4 pixel tolerance can be nice.