Need lens advice for an aspiring amateur

[levon_monte]

<p>I recently bought a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 to upgrade from my 18-55 kit lens on my Xti. I've used my kit lens for a few years and have managed to get some great pictures with it. I just want to get more pro equipment so I can start doing portraits, etc., for money. I researched forever what lens to get and decided on this one. I'm not too impressed with it though. I think that after using it for a week, I'm not getting amazingly better results than my kit lens. THe f/2.8 is nice, but the focus seems very undecided a lot and the sharpness isn't what I expected. I can still return it within the next week. I'm thinking that I won't really be impressed with a sub-$1000 lens, so I should just return this and wait until I can buy a canon L lens or something like that. I can't afford anything above $500 right now. I'm thinking of still upgrading my old kit lens to the newer Canon kit 18-55 IS lens, that's supposed to be much better than my old 18-55. Any opinions on this decision? The 18-55 IS can be had for $130 and I think I'll get the nifty fifty too and maybe the 55-250 IS and be satisfied until I can go pro one day...</p>

[john v.]

<p>I'm surprised you didn't find the lens sharp enough. I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and I find the sharpness pretty good for a lens in that price range. I do agree that the autofocus can be indecisive. However, when comparing its price to the Canon 17-55 f/2.8, I can live with the Tamron's autofocus quirks. It could be you just have a bad copy. If you bought it at a store, maybe consider exchanging it. The picture below shows the sharpness you can achieve with the Tamron. The shot was hand held; no tripod. The big picture is a crop, the inset is the original picture.</p><div></div>

[nathan_meador]

<p>If you do decide to look at a different lens, you might look at an Canon's 85mm f1.8 if you want a strong portrait lens. It is well under $1000 but an excellent lens.</p>

[robertbody]

<p>I recall reading that the 70-300mm has a version [most expensive probably] that is way sharper than the 55-200mm..... but for the money, i would rather get a 200mm f/2.8 for $700 and a 85mm 1.8, rather than a 55-200mm zoom. More choices that way with faster aperture, and better quality too. For wider end, yes 50mm and a 35mm f/2.8 and is there a 28mm f/2.8 too? Actually on a crop sensor maybe something even wider than that, but a fast prime over a slow zoom, definately, at least 2 primes would be good for you try, like 50mm f/1.8 and that 200mm f/2.8, quite a difference in perspective too</p>

 

[ejchem101]

<p>I would highly recommend the 50 1.8, as it is very affordable and an ok portrait lens on an aps-c sensor. </p>

<p>In the "wide-normal" zoom range (what your kit lens is) if you are only looking at canon "L" zoom lenses you've got a few options. I would head over to canon's website and browse through the lenses, and then go find reviews on ones you think would be a good focal range for you. If you are wanting a portrait lens, you'll probably be looking at the lenses in the range from 50 to 135 or maybe even longer.</p>

<p> </p>

[garymoncur]

<p>I have to agree with John if you dont think the 17-50 is sharper than the old mk1 kit kens then something is seriously wrong with it. However I think your idea of the 18-55is and 55-250 is a good one, for the price of the tamron (which your not happy with anyway) you could buy them both and have a much better reach. You wouldnt be disappointed with either of these and they would expand your shooting possibilities a lot. Add in the nifty fifty for portraits and you have a kit that probably hundreds if not thousands of photographers out there are getting great results with.</p>

[levon_monte]

<p>John, I like to do a lot of macro of flowers and this lens suffers. I realize it's not a macro, but it's not any better, maybe worse, than my old cheapie kit lens surprisingly. Landscape photos are fine, but I'm just not overly impressed, like some of the pics I see of the canon 17-55 are amazing. I took a pic the other day of my nephew skating and the auto focus picked up the sliver of background in the back and not him, the center of area. Things like that keep happening with this lens, so I think I'll got back to square one and wait until I can afford the Canon 17-55. Maybe it's a bad copy, but I'd rather just not bother with going that route and settling for some cheapies for now. </p>

[winniv]

<p>Hi Levon,<br>

I'd upgrade to the Canon 15-85. The lens provides great flexibility and high quality. It's current on sale for 620 dollar which is a 100 off of what I paid for it and I think a really good price. If you want to do portraits for money, you'll have to invest a lot more money than that to compete with the pros on this site. But if that's really your goal, I'd probably go with the 85mm F1.8 and keep your kit lens on the side. The 15-85 will give you a lot more to experience if all you have now is the kit lens though. Good luck.</p>

[matthijs]

Are you testing it the right way?

 

 

Do you have any lens that doesn't disappoint?

 

 

Are you shooting wide open / could it be a depth of field issue?

 

 

You might have a bad copy... But when my lenses underperform 19 times out of 20 it's just me making mistakes.

[levon_monte]

<p>matthijs, i've never had a lens acting like this, i've only had my cheapie kit lens too. it just doesn't want to focus sometimes. i know this is supposed to be a "pro-amateur" quality lens, but it doesn't perform so. I have to use manual focus so much compared to my old lens, even when stopped down to f/4 or more.</p>

[markonestudios]

"I have to use manual focus so much compared to my old lens, even when stopped down to f/4 or more."

<p>The lens focuses wide open then stops down only when you're taking the shot. Which focusing points do you use? The centre one typically has the highest sensitivity. When working with faster lenses, the focusing point is critical, as the portion of the photo in focus becomes very limited.

<p>As for portraits, I regularly sell portraits shot on my trusty but humble Canon 50 f/1.8... You may want to get your hands on that, or the slightly better built (and faster) 50 f/1.4...

<p>Your Tamron may simply be a bad copy. I have read of a few duds, but conversely when they work, they work very well.

[chris_gampat]

<p>Hi Levon,<br>

My personal recommendations are the 24-105mm F4 L IS or the 85mm F1.8 by Canon. They're wonderful lenses.</p>