Lens choice dilemma

[fergus_randall]

<p>In the next 6 months im about to splash out and buy my first DSLR, a 50d. However, I can't decide between the</p>

<p><a name="802" href="http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod802.htm">Canon Lens 28-135mm EF f/3.5-5.6 IS USM</a><br>

or<br>

<a name="4252" href="http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod4252.htm">Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [iF]</a><br>

or<br>

<a name="3912" href="http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod3912.htm">Sigma Lens 24-70mm F/2.8 EX DG Macro</a></p>

<p>as a walk around lens + shooting the occasional low light event. does IS have any significant benefit over a 2.8 aperture through the whole range in low light environments? Any advice on a good general purpose lens would be greatly appreciated. Cheers in advance!</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>24 and 28 mm is, in my opinion, not wide enough on an APS-C body for a general purpose lens. I'd go for the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (I have one) or the new version with VC (their version of IS). Both f/2.8 and IS have their advantages. IS lets you hand hold the lens in lower light by allowing you to use slower shutter speeds than you ordinarily could. The problem is that these slower shutter speeds will still cause blur in moving subjects the same as it would w/o IS. The fast f/2.8 aperture on the other hand allows you to use higher shutter speeds which eliminate or reduce blur due to subject movement.</p>

<p>In other words, if you are shooting moving subjects in low light, the f/2.8 aperture is generally better. For stationary subjects in low light IS may be better. For your stated purposes, I think that the f/2.8 lens is the best choice. The f/2.8 is also good for portraits, as it's shallower depth-of-field can blur out the background.</p>

<p>You can get the best of both worlds with the new Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC if you can handle the price.</p>

[ruimarto]

<p>I do not agree with Mark about 24mm not beeing wide enough on an APS-C Body. 24mm on an APS-C body is equivalent to 38mm on a Full Frame body, which is close to what most compact cameras had until a few months ago. And guess what? Everyone lived with it just fine.<br /> On the other hand, I'm mostly a portrait/commercial photographer and I find 50mm to be very short for anything closer than a half-body portrait. It just doesn't have enough compression which is a key element on a good (close) portrait.<br /> Bottom line, it really depends on your style. If you're more into landscape by all means buy something with less than 20mm on the wide side, however if you're more into portraiture, you might want to consider a lens that goes a bit further than 50mm. And you usually have to make an option, as there are no perfect lenses (don't expect much from lenses such as 18-135mm).<br>

Regarding the three lenses you referred, I've used them all and I have to say that the Tamron 17-50 2.8 is by far sharper than the 28-135mm. It's a really big difference. I've had both the 28-135mm IS and the 28-105mm and none of them where up to my IQ standards.<br>

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is probably the sharpest lens I've used, and it's actually my walk around lens for photojournalism. The only lenses I've used that match up to the quality of this lens were some primes and L-Series.<br>

About the Sigma 24-70mm, depends on the version you get. I've used one and I wasn't very pleased with the image quality, but I've heard that the other version is quite good and many people prefer it to the Canon 24-70 2.8L.</p>

[mike_connell1]

<p>28mm isn't wide enough for landscape in my opinion. I bought a 18-55mm Canon IS for my first wide angle, general walk around outdoors. It's decent for the price, but not as sharp as the Tamron from what I've seen in sample pics. Neither that or the 28-135mm are fast lens, so they won't do well in low light without flash. I bought a Sigma 30mm 1.4 for my indoors no-flash lens. </p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>'General purpose' can be interpreted in many ways. It could mean "I am interested in landscapes but don't want to change lenses when I am in the street" or "I want to do portraits but don't want to change lenses when I am in the street". You could choose different lenses for these tasks and still call them 'general purpose'. Landscapes may not be high on your priorities - I take quite a few but even then a large proportion of them (with a Canon 30D) are taken in the 100mm+ range as I prefer to abstract elements of the landscape than have grand vistas. So it all comes down to what you want to do with it.</p>

<p>But the only thing you specifically mention is 'low-light events' which suggests your first interest is <em>not</em> landscapes so based on that assumption I would recommend the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 which is a fantastic lens for the money. It does not have IS but I don't think that is a huge problem - at low lights levels (and slow shutter speeds) subject movement (which IS does not cure) will be a bigger problem than camera shake. Plus it is wide enough to take street shots and landscapes if you choose.</p>

<p>Neither of the other two are 'fast' lenses but I think the high-ISO quality of the 50D enables you to get the shutter speed that a few years ago you could only get with f2.8 so you can afford to be a little less choosy on lenses. Overall, I think that the Sigma 24-70 would be a better all-purpose lens for you until you work out what sort of photography you want to have a high-quality lens for. The 28mm of the 28-135 may a little too long for 'general shooting'. Then if you want to do wider landscapes, wildlife or macro then buy a lens for that task.</p>

<p>Given that you seem to be on a specific budget, you could get the 24-70 (or 28-135) and spend a bit more to get the excellent 50mm f1.8 as well for the really low light work? The 50m if great quality and light (though build is not very rugged). This combination would be not much more in total than the Tamron 17-50.</p>

[jimstrutz]

<p>I am decidedly in the "24mm is not wide enough for APS-C body" camp. 38mm wasn't wide enough in small point & shoots either. That's why all the interesting point & shoots are offering wider lenses these days. I'd get the Tamron with VC or the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS if you can afford it.</p>