jeff_bogle Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 <p>OK, so I've completely racked my brain trying to get to the bottom line for my next lens on my Canon 40D. Problem is, I think I've done TOO MUCH research. Every little feature for each lens that I have printed and mounted on my bulletin board keeps racing through my head. This is good here, well this is good there, and so on. I'm looking for a good quality "all-purpose" lens, but mainly good for studio portraits, as well as location family portraits too. My question to you all is, out of these 5 lenses, which would you choose (and if you have a better suggestion please tell me). And to save time, my budget can't be more than $600. That takes away my WANT which is the canon 17-55, along with a few others.<br> 1. Sigma 17-50mm F/2.8 EX DC OS HSM<br> 2. Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II VC<br> 3. Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.0 DC Macro OS HSM<br> 4. Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro<br> 5. Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Fi II LD Asperical (IF)</p> <p>Thanks! Braindead Lens Buyer<br> <p><b></b> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 <p>Here's a secret. It really doesn't matter much. Personally for portraits with a 40D I'd buy a Canon EF 50/1.8. Much better than any of the zooms and much cheaper.</p> <p>If I really thought I needed a zoom, I'd probably get the Tamron (#2), but like I said, it probably won't matter a lot. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_bogle Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 <p>Thanks Bob! I appreciate your response. I'm a fan by the way. I actually do have a 50mm f/1.4 that is usually on my camera all the time, and the majority of my quality shots are from that. There's just times when I can't simply "back up" enough to get the shot. I have recently built an in-home studio and I just simply don't have the room! Not to pester, but do you have another quick solution. Thanks, Jeff Bogle</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_bogle Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 <p>Bob disregard the last sentence on the last post. I didn't even see your comment about the Tamron...unles you have another suggestion. Ha, thanks again. Jeff Bogle</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h_._jm Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 <p>Hi there, I will give you my two cents/experience...<br> In 2009, I had the 1000D canon and bought the tamron 17-50 non VC (Which is better than VC btw optically) as well as 50 1.8 II and 55-250 IS.<br> I would confidently say the tamron had much nicer colour and overall in my opinion better photos mainly due to colour and bokeh was great. Also it was sharp, but had 2 mini problems: AF not accurate always (say up to 10% of photos not as sharp as u like, but the rest super sharp; mind you 10% can be frustrating if it's an important event!) and also sometimes in indoors with canon 430 ex II some pics were too 'yellow' when mixed with either fluorsecent light in the room or tungsten I can't remember which...so basically synchronizing with flash and that not as perfect as a canon lens..</p> <p>Apart from these two mini problems, I promise you when I bought the 17-55 IS F2.8 a year later, I realized the Tamron is every bit as good as the 17-55 and had even better bokeh in my opinion.<br> For me it's a no brainer Tamron 17-50 if I was to decide; but if you buy get from a shop that would exchange cause apparently some of them don't focus right; mine did.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_mcdonald3 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 <p>Every piece of kit is compromise of course. If you're interested principally in portraits, that need should drive your decision. I'm uncomfortable with wide angles for portraiture, depending perhaps on your desired outcome. If your work is intended to be commercial, I'd steer clear of wider primes. I'm in the UK so I don't know what a used 17-40 goes for with you. Either way, if you're looking to do headshots I doubt this would fill the bill. Are you mainly interested in half-body composition and what's your max shooting distance? Another approach may be to consider a used 5D1 depending on whether you have anything longer than your 50?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaydesi Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 <p>If you like the quality fo the 50 f/1.4, how about a Sigma 30mm f/1.4? It's about $450 or so, fast, and sharp.</p> <p>I also recently got the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 and think it's great, but the 17-70 f/2.8-4.0 is a good deal, too.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brett_w. Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 <p>The Tamron 17-50 2.8 <strong>non-vc</strong> is very good but if you need "IS" then the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS HSM may be the better choice however it will cost more. I also prefer primes for portraits - 50mm 1.8 is cheap but good ~ $100</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_bogle Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 <p>Thanks everybody for the responses. In a nutshell, I'm looking for a versatile lens for many categories. I shoot weddings, social events, family portraits and landscapes when I go fishing (I'm a fly fishing fanatic). Weddings and family portraits are the two important ones here though, as that's where the majority of my work is. I guess my number one feature I'm looking for is a constant fast lens. "IS" is nice, but I've read (like some of you have already posted) that non "IS" lenses are generally better optically. I would love to own another prime in the near future also, but at the moment I'm looking for something more versatile. Thanks, Jeff Bogle</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_j2 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 <p>I've owned my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 AF SP XR Di II LD IF (Non-VC) for a couple of years now with no complaints. Originally purchased because of the price difference between it and the comparable Canon's, and the reviews were pretty good.<br /> It's currently the only third party lens that I own, and I'm more than satisfied. When I need something a bit wider angle than my EF 50 f/1.4 can provide, the Tamron fits the bill.</p> <p>Best wishes,</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_pierlot Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 <p>I do a lot of informal portraiture of my kids with my 5DII and 50D, and replaced all of my shorter EF zooms (17-40, 24-70, 24-105) with faster, optically superior primes. The only EF zoom I kept is the 70-200/4 L IS, which is a superb lens for outdoor portraiture.</p> <p>So if I were you, Jeff, I would pick up another prime. IS is irrelevant if you're shooting from a tripod, and is less useful on shorter lenses than on longer ones. But if you're intent on getting a normal zoom, I think than any of the 17-50/2.8's will serve you well. I've heard that the non-VC Tamron is sharper than the EF-S 17-55. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_kim2 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 <p>I had the Tamron 17-50 non-VC, ended up getting the 17-55 IS, I did not notice any IQ difference between the two (besides improvement due to IS at low shutter speeds), the 17-55 focuses faster, but the Tamron is much lighter. <br> Go with the Tamron 17-50 non-VC, it is a great bargin. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Ian Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 <p>#5 or #1 or #2 - In that order, but then I don't consider IS to be a necessity. If you do, then skip to #1/#2 - Though the Sig is supposedly a bit better than the Tamron VC.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_bogle Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 <p>I appreciate eveyone's incite. Thanks. I'm taking all your suggestions into consideration. The more I think about it, obviously quality is definitely more important than versatility. Maybe another prime is the way to go. Maybe the canon 24mm or the 28mm. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 <p>The Canon EF 28-135mm IS lens is in your price range and is a very nice lens, although often overlooked. If you really need the f/2.8, it wouldn't do, but the IS is worth a lot.<br> I'd be another fan of using your 50mm f/1.4 which is an excellent short tele on your body.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthijs Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 15-85 (-: For 'art' I'd get a prime. Maybe Canon 28/1.8 or Sigma 30/1.4. For walkaround and events I'd get a Canon 15-85 plus a simple flash with swiveling head. But I'm not you. Do you like shallow depth of field? Do you want utter sharpness? Do you want low-light / stopping action? Do you want low-light slow shutter? Keep shooting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig_meddaugh Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 <p>Skip the 24/2.8. The Tamron non-VC is actually sharper. The 28/1.8 actually buys you some more light so it might be worth it if you plan on using it near wide-open. However, if you primarily intend on using it stopped down, the Tamron is a better performer at equivalent apertures. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yog_sothoth Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 <p>I would go for the #5 Tamron, as it is very sharp and the least expensive. </p> <p>If the lens is mostly for portraits the Tamron 28-75 2.8 could be a good choice. It will give you a little extra reach and is a normal lens at the shortest focal length.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abbas_haider Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Since you have mention tha Tamron 17-50 non VC then you might consider the sigma 18-50 f2.8. I have tested it on Nikon D200 and honestly the color render was much saturated than the 50 f1.8 and since then I m using the prime 50 rarely If you chose any one from the list it will do great but I prefer 2.8. As far as our friends mentioned, 17-40, 28-135, 24-70 these all are well with full frame though for portrait they are good even on crop sensorse, but for wide angle forget it, it wont be any good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_elessar Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 <blockquote> <p>honestly the color render was much saturated than the 50 f1.8 and since then I m using the prime 50 rarely If you chose any one from the list it will do great but I prefer 2.8.</p> </blockquote> <p>Interesting—can you say more about this, or post samples that show what you mean? I got the Sigma 17 – 50 OS f / 2.8 a few weeks ago and have the Canon 50 f / 1.8, but I haven't noticed differences in saturation. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massimo_foti Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 <p>You should add Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 to the list :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now