Tamron 17-50 vs Kit Lens + Nifty Fifty???
Mar 17, 2012
I'm buying a D-SLR for first time (Canon T2i). I've done a lot of reading and still confused about the best "budget" lens to get. Majority of my photos are indoors such as portraits of family/baby or in museums (low light), etc..., and also a lot of landscape photos. My goal is to have super sharp crisp photos (hopefully better quality than my Canon point and shoot), and also portraits/macros with excellent bokeh. I plan to spend about $500 USD on the camera body, and $250 to $500 USD on the lenses, for now.
I'm loooking at the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 ($500 USD). Will it give me better quality and is it worth the extra $250 USD as compared with the Kit Lens Canon 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS ($120 USD), combined with the Canon 50 mm f/1.8 for portraits with bokeh ($120)???
TAMRON: What I don't understand (due to my lack of knowledge) is that many say this lens is not sharpest at 2.8, so you have to go down to smaller aperatures to get full sharpness throughout the photo- Does that negate the advantage of having a 2.8 lens, since you'd prefer to use 2.8 for higher shutter speed and better low light performance???? So, will you only use f/2.8 aperature when you want bokeh???? On a side note, I've heard about the loud AF (some say it's like a drill) and issues with quality control. And there is no IS. Many seem to be pleased with this lens, but there are a few that have had problems with it.
CANON: Image Stabilization on the kit lens would be a plus. Is bokeh better on the Canon 50 mm f/1.8 than the 50 mm f/2.8 on the Tamron? Also, it'd be nice to have the Canon quality control.
Are there any other lenses you'd suggest?