Your opinion on Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 SP XR Di II VC

[john_valjean]

<p>Forum members, hello.<br>

A question for the experts but before the question some background. I am using an XTI around the house and mostly to take shots of the kids (5 years old and younger). Lighting situation is low since it is mostly incandescent light. I don't want to use a flash, so right now my only option is to go ISO16000 on my 50mm f1.8. Pictures are coming out OK, you can see some noise in the pictures.<br>

I am considering to get the lens in subject, it is going for about $630. Reviews are so-so, so I decided to ask for your opinion since I am sure most of you already got your hand on such a lens or at least an equivalent.</p>

<p>So my question is do you think this lens will satisfy my need if I use it along with less than ISO800 on my camera? and/or what alternative do you suggest of course staying in the same price range.</p>

<p>Thank you in advance for your time.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>If your 50mm f/1.8 has to be used at ISO 1600, then an f/2.8 lens won't slove your problem. You would need to use ISO 3200 to get the same shutter as your 50mm/1.8 set at f/2. I think the 50mm f/1.8 is your best option, unless you want to spend a few hundred dollars more and get the 50mm f/1.4.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>You should consider an off camera flash and learn to bounce or diffuse it. Flash freezes motion and it looks good if used correctly. It also opens up many creative opportunities. Without flash your best option is probably a prime like the 28 1.8, 35 2.0, 50 1.4, 85 1.8 depending on how you like to shoot.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I'm currently reviewing the Tamron 17-50 VC. <strong>Note the VC</strong>, which means that this is an optically stabilized lens.</p>

<p>If the kids are moving, you need a faster shutter speed, not a stabilized lens. However if they are static, the VC lens can give you up to 4 stops of added stability, so if you're getting 1/80s at ISO 1600 at f2 with an unstabilized lens, you should be able to drop to ISO 400 and shoot at 1/5s with the stabilized f2.8 and still get a reasonable chance of sharp shots - again, assuming your subject isn't moving.</p>

<p>I have taken shots at 50mm and 1/5s which are sharp with this lens. Not every single shot, but a good fraction of them (more than 50%).</p>

[michael_young3]

<p>I can heartily recommend the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS. Depending on your definition of price range... it's in the same "under $1000" range. My needs are similar to yours: handheld existing light. The IS makes it slightly better than the nifty-fifty for low light.</p>

<p>There's no getting around having to light it better, or support it better for long exposures. A monopod is surprising effective; I get usable shots at 1/4 and slower; 1/2 second or so is possible if I'm not particularly picky about the slight smearing around very fine detail. The trick is to not induce your unsteadiness in the undamped twist axis. Side and fore-aft sway is damped considerably by the long action arm. The principle is the same as with a steadicam. Tilting and twisting significantly magnifies the motion compared to localized small heaves and shifts. The Manfrotto Neotec is pricey and somewhat fragile cosmetically, but extends and collapses much faster and more easily than "normal" 'pods with twist or lever locks.</p>

[michael_young3]

<p>Furthermore... I think fixing the lighting problem with inset or track lighting makes infinitely more sense if you have control of the environment they inhabit. My gallery wall was a good reason to install MR16 track lights. The benefit there was the wash of high CRI lights solved both the color temperature and luminance problems in that particular frequently used space.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>To answer Michael above, if the children are moving, a monopod, or tripod, or attaching your camera to your house, will not help any more than VC or IS. These only prevent or compensate for movement of the camera.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>As mentioned, the T17-50/2.8 VC doesn't particularly look all that appetizing. e.g.<br>

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/482-tamron_1750_28vc_canon</p>

<p>I have the non-VC version of the Tamron, as well as a Canon 17-55/2.8 IS. Both are super sharp. The Canon gives you USM focus, stabilization, and just a tad more punch when shot wide open, compared to the Tamron non-VC. The Tamron non-VC is excellent value. The Canon costs more, but you get what you pay for.</p>

<p>I highly recommend one of the two above. It'll allow you to get closer, compared to the 50/1.8. You'll be able to shoot in tighter spaces and you'll be able to change compositions quickly. I haven't tried the lens you ask about, but I'd be hesitant about plunking down that much $$ given the mediocre optics.</p>

<p>Of course you'll still need to improve the lighting, as pointed out by others.</p>

[andreas_kusumahadi]

<p>My gears are XTI, Tamron 17-50, and 50 1.8 I and 420EX flash.</p>

<p>I shoot my 3 years old kid all the time in the room at night. The most important thing in that kind of shots is flash. I know XTi character and I think it's hard to get sharp and clean images without flash in such a high ISO with available room light. If it used properly, you'll get very good pics with it.</p>

<p>Having a flash, the most usable lens is Tamron 17-50, as you would get versatility of focal length. My room is not big enough, so using 50mm is only suitable for head-shoulder shots. Bear in mind, EF 50 1.8 is not fast enough focusing in low light, and the Tamron is even worse. Your kids move much faster than your lens' AF, and it becomes very hard to get quick and proper focus without flash assist, and it means you lost many good moments.<br>

<br /> Without flash (assist), forget the Tamron zoom.<br /> If for some reasons you have to avoid flash, you'll need a (very) fast prime with very good AF speed. With my room, I would get around 35mm fast prime lens. If you're happy with 50mm focal, my guess you'll get a better chance with EF 50mm 1.4. But I'm not sure, as I never used one. (Some reviews suggest the AF of 50/1.4 is not accurate wide open)</p>

[john_kennedy1]

<p>I have been using the Tamron VC lens for the past two months. I haven't had any of the problems that I've read about in recent reviews. If your looking for a lens in this focal length with IS it's a good economical lens as compared with the Canon 17-55. </p>

[paddler4]

<p>I agree with Tommy and Andreas that if you want indoor shots of kids, you ought to think about flash. As Nathan pointed out, moving to an f/2.8 lens will only make things worse.</p>

<p>I don't agree with Tommy that you need to have an off-camera flash. It's better, but you don't need to do that to start. You do need something other than the built in flash, but you can get some pretty good results with a flash mounted on the camera. The key is diffusing and bouncing. Get a flash with a bounce head (in the Canon line, that means at least a 430 EX), spend $15 on a stofen omni-bounce, and spend a little more to buy a Demb Flip It, which is an ajustable bounce card. Then practice using bounced flash. It takes some learning, but it makes a huge difference.</p>

<p>I have only recently started playing with flash, so I am no expert, but still, you could look at the shots at http://dkoretz.smugmug.com/Other/Some-nice-people/10773878_xLfqN/1/750942275_LHKak. These were all taken with either an XTi or a 50D, using a camera-mounted 430EXII. The fifth one, if I recall, was just bounced off the ceiling. The others also used the stofen, the flipit, or both. I think they were all taken with a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, which has a nice range of focal lengths for portraits on a crop sensor camera.</p>

[markonestudios]

Another vote for flash. In one go you can increase shutter speed, lower your ISO, increase focus accuracy (depending on which flash) and get sharp photos :) It doesn't need to be off-camera. Dan has effectively illustrated what's possible with on-camera flash photography, correctly used.

[michael_young3]

<p>Some very nice shots, Dan, illustrating the quality of light we strive for. I've always had some doubts about OmniBounces, but I'm inspired by your results and ordered a few. If nothing else, the gold and green ones can substitute for gels.</p>

<p>I'm curious if they were all bounced, and what quality of light the Sto-Fens give pointed straight ahead. The principle, of course, is a big light gives a nice soft wrap. The bigger the light and the closer it is, the softer the wrap. A ceiling bounce essentially turns the nearby ceiling into a big light. But the OmniBounce can only scatter the light out the side, it seems. Are any of these shots made with just the diffuser pointed straight ahead, without bounce?</p>

<p>All the same, setting the flash off camera on a stand or even just on a handy table or shelf frees you to move around the action without changing the lighting as you do so. A wireless trigger of some sort makes it possible, and doesn't hurt the spontaneity too much. It probably helps, since it frees you to move around and flip and turn the camera without having to spin the flash head to match.</p>

<p>For John, flash from a bounce is much less intrusive than poking them in the eyes with the popup. If the concern is to not intrude on the activity, I think you'll find that your kids won't pay too much attention after the first few minutes.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>I occasionally use the ominbounce straight on, but not in those shots. My default, if I have nice ceiling and no time to think, is to use both the omnibounce and the flip it. I bounce off the ceiling and use the flip-it to get some direct fill light. Works OK if the camera is horizontal. From there, it is easy to play around. E.g., the black and white had the flash bounced off the ceiling behind my shoulder (no omnibounce, I think), and I used the flip it for more direct light.</p>

<p>I do have a bracket and sometimes take the flash entirely off. Even at my low level of expertise, it's clear that that can be much better. However, the quick and dirty is fine for many purposes.</p>

<p>Sorry to hijack the post.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p> </p>

[tdigi]

<p>Just to be clear I did not mean to say off camera flash ( like strobes etc ) I meant to say a mounted flash ( something other then the pop up ) So I am in complete agreement with what Dan and others have said about using flash.</p>