just one lens

i know this gets old. i'm buying a 400D and one lens for now.

would you recommend:
tamaron 17-50
tamaron 28-75
canon 50/1.8
canon 17-85/IS

long time very amateur photographer. 1st DSLR. usually take buildings/people, not landscapes. i grew up with a canon AE-1/50mM, which was usually fine - occasionaly too wide, occasionally not enough. i'm really most concerned with IQ. i can always buy another lens later - and L is out of the picture for me - the wife would kill me if she found out

right now i am leaning toward either the tamaron 17-50 or the canon 50/1.8.

i have only just gotten back into photography. here are examples of a couple of photos i've taken with either a PS or holga lately - very few b/c flickr limited with # of uploads.

a few pics

any opinions would be greatly appreciated.

thanks!

17-85IS is it. That is the lens I'd buy if I were on the tight budget and restricted to 1 lens only. If I had some more money I'd buy 17-55IS. Or if I could have 3 lenses for the same money I'd buy 24/2.8, 50/1.4 and 100/2.

You will inevitably want more than one lens.

Just start out with the kit zoom lens and the 50mm f/1.8
for low light work. Can't beat the price!

When you have shot with these for a while you will
know what kind of shooting you do most often then
you will know what you need.

If you really want to bypass the kit lens, the Tamron
17-50 is probably the way to go for a good value. You might
still want a 50mm f/1.8, though. It's nice to have a small 1.8 lens
for such a cheap price.

--
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests

If the 50 wasn't always wide enough on film, neither the 50 nor the 28-75 will be wide enough on digital. For your standard zoom on a 400D, you're better off buying a lens which was actually designed for the smaller 1.6x sensor, not a legacy 35mm lens.

The choice between a fast zoom such as the 17-50, or a slower but longer lens such as the 17-85, is distinctly personal preference (in an ideal world you'd have both). The extra range of the 17-85 is obviously an advantage, and the image stabilisation allows you to hand hold at slow shutter speeds. This helps tremendously in low light, or when you want to stop down for depth of field, or simply use slow speeds for creative motion blur effects (moving water is a classic example). On the other hand, the larger aperture of the 17-50 F2.8 is advantageous when photographing people, as then you often want to keep shutter speeds relatively high, and use the limited depth of field at larger apertures to blur the background. The optical quality of the 17-50 is also distinctly higher.

For your stated purpose, I'd lean towards the 17-50; but the best option is always to go to a shop, try each on the camera and see which you prefer.
Andy

400D + 17-50

kit and 50 1.8 are cheap, but it's arround 200 USD total. You would better spend a little more in a 430EX speelite. Try to avoid carry lots of lenses you won't use. Save for good lenses in other ranges in case you find necessary later.

Cheers,

Eduardo.

in my original post, i meant to include 50/1.4 (not 1.8) as one of the choices, but the more i read, the more i think the 50/1.8 is a better deal anyway for $75.

so now i am really struggling between the tamaron 17-50 and the 17-85IS. I was considering the Tamaron 28-75, but it seems many more people go with the 17-85IS, and I guess it is just personal preference from there. Based on what I read, I worry that the 17-50 will not be as good around 50, but then again, the 17-85 is slower. As a new reader to these boards, I guess I see why there is so much to debate....no perfect answer - especially if you are not willing to pay L prices.

I agree with trumpet_guy...

I'd start with a Kit lens... and 50mm f1.8.

If you find the kit is unacceptable after some time... well then buy something else... but really the kit lens is not that bad... and well it's a heck of a lot cheaper then the others...

trumpet_guy said:

You will inevitably want more than one lens.

Just start out with the kit zoom lens and the 50mm f/1.8
for low light work. Can't beat the price!

When you have shot with these for a while you will
know what kind of shooting you do most often then
you will know what you need.

If you really want to bypass the kit lens, the Tamron
17-50 is probably the way to go for a good value. You might
still want a 50mm f/1.8, though. It's nice to have a small 1.8 lens
for such a cheap price.

Click to expand...

trumpet_guy said:

Just start out with the kit zoom lens and the 50mm f/1.8
for low light work. Can't beat the price!

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I did this summer. I now have a MUCH better idea of where I want to go with future lenses.

Used within the limits of their capability, these lenses can still produce some very fine images. I even took it "birding" yesterday...



You can check this gallery if you'd like, for more pics from these two lenses exclusively...

http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/canon_30d_gallery

Good luck Stew', and have fun no matter which route you go.
R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.

http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

I realize you're on a budget. If you get the 50mm, you'll have to let your feet be the zoom. I've got a Tamrom 18-200 digital-only zoom and it's great for a small, light, wide-range lens. It's my sightseeing and hiking lens. In my opinion, this lens will "take care of you" until you upgrade to "L" or image stabilization lenses. Or you may want to consider a macro or a teleextender for your next purchase.

Good luck!

I had a dilemma similar to yours, and finally narrowed down to the Tamron 17-50 ($450), for the low f-stop, and the Sigma 17-70 ($400), for the longer range. Both do very well on the reviews, and both are sturdy, well-built lenses. I finally decided on the Sigma 17-70, and I’ve been very pleased with decision. But I think you would be very pleased with either.

At the same time that I purchased the 30D and the Sigma 17-70, I also got the Canon 50/f1.8 ($80). Cheap, excellent quality images, and very wide aperture. And cheap! Do it, whichever way you go on the ‘primary’ zoom lens.

--
BJCP National

from your list, I'd go for the 17-85 and the 50/1.8... that way you get the best possible combination..

however, if I were starting again, with what I know now (after 25k images), I would go for the 24/2.8, 50/1.8, and a longer zoom like the 70-300IS... the 24 would be my walkaround on the XT or 400D..

'one lens' goes against the single largest advantage of SLR... changeable lenses to suit the situation..

Cheers,
Scotty
--

• How deep does the Rabbit Hole go? *

My XT IS Full Frame -- APS-C/FF of course!

I am definitely going to buy the 50/1.8 @$75 - seems like a no brainer.

I keep going back and forth on the other choice. I am taking a trip to South America soon and I want to make sure I have the one (2) lens(s) to bring back some really great photos, without buying Ls. Hmmmmm....must make decision soon. I have been obsessing about this for too long now and need to actually get some work done!!

thanks for everyone's advice, btw.

stewey10 said:

i know this gets old. i'm buying a 400D and one lens for now.

would you recommend:
tamaron 17-50
tamaron 28-75
canon 50/1.8
canon 17-85/IS

long time very amateur photographer. 1st DSLR. usually take
buildings/people, not landscapes. i grew up with a canon
AE-1/50mM, which was usually fine - occasionaly too wide,
occasionally not enough. i'm really most concerned with IQ. i can
always buy another lens later - and L is out of the picture for me

• the wife would kill me if she found out

right now i am leaning toward either the tamaron 17-50 or the canon
50/1.8.
...any opinions would be greatly appreciated.

Click to expand...

If you really want a zoom, then I think that the 17-50 would be a top choice. Alternate would be the 28-75. Both are sharp, offer good color, and decent focus. The wider angle of the 17-50 will give better indoor flexibility when shooting groups and architecture. It is a good all around lens and is on my "to buy soon" list. I love the 28-75, but want/need the wider angle. Do note that f/2.8 is fast, but still not fast enough for low-light situations without flash assist.

If you like primes, then you might want the Canon 50 f/1.4 or the Sigma 30 f/1.4 (or both!). With the 1.6 crop factor in constrained areas 50mm works well for children and 3/4 portraits. For full-length portaits the 30mm would be better as it is effectively a "normal" lens on the 400D, though I'm not sure I would want it as my only lens.

If you want a super cheap low-light lens set that can be upgraded later, try the Canon 35 f/2 and 50 f/1.8. Neither is as sharp or good at focusing as the above alternatives, but they are cheap, let in a lot of light, and do the job well.

I just used my 60mm macro for some shots of a 1year old in a small house and it worked well though I had to stand back to get an adult with the child. I also had to use ISO 800 and flash, which is why the Sigma 30 f/1.4 and Canon 50 f/1.4 are on my want list.

-Gene L.

The critical difference here is the f-stop vs. the range. If you’re planning on a large portion of indoor pictures, it’s a no-brainer – go for the f-stop (Tamron 17-50). If most of your photos will be daylight outdoors, the increased range of the Sigma may be better.

I’m sure you realize this cannot be the end of your lens collection. Stop a few minutes and think about where you may be going – indoor portraits, landscapes, wildlife, etc. One factor of my decision was the ‘plan’ for future lenses. The 17-70 fits well when your next lenses will be WA (Sigma 10-20) and telephoto (70-300). This gives me continuous coverage from 10 to 300 mm (effectively 16 to 480 mm). I’ll admit I’d probably not miss the 50 to 70 mm range if I had gotten the Tamron but there’s a certain symmetry to having continuous coverage, rather than having a gap – Oh my God, I’m sitting here with my tripod and can’t properly frame this because I need 62.5 mm and I can’t get it! Well, this hasn’t happened yet, but it might! (We’ll pretend here we don’t know about cropping)

Anyway, I totally approve of your decision on the 50/1.8, and you won’t be disappointed with either the Tamron or Sigma.

--
BJCP National

People have already pointed out that the 50/1.8 is a bit too long for a general walkaround lens. The best alternative for that would be the Sigma 30/1.4 today. I take well over 90% of all my images with that lens.

If I were me, I'd get the Sigma - and then the 50/1.8 as well since it's a really handy focal length for portraits and so cheap it's worth it almost by default.

--
Japan: http://www.lucs.lu.se/people/jan.moren/log/current.html
Images: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jannem/

I had the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 and I sold it to buy the 17-85mm IS for my 20D. It was the best lens decision I ever made. I now also have the Canon 10-22mm and the Canon 70-200 L F4. With the Tamron I frustratingly went from some keepers to almost every shot being a keeper with the 17-85mm. I sent the Tamron back for calibration when I had it but it made absolutely no difference. Some swear by this lens though.

The 17-85mm IS is the best general purpose walk-around lens there is for the Canon 1.6 crop cameras. It has a great range, it is very sharp especially at center, it has the IS of course which is fantastic, and then there's the fast and silent USM focus, the none rotating front, the full-time manual. There's some distortion at 17mm but nothing you can't very easily compensate for. Some talk about CA but it's better than the 17-40mm L I rented.

The 50mm 1.8 is a greatly overated lens IMHO because it is cheap. Many say you should have one in your bag and I do (more unused on the shelf) but that doesn't make any sense. This lens is known for inaccurate focusing and soft images opened up. So now you are faced with random backfocus and you need to stop it down to get a reasonably sharp shot!!!I did a comparison (it's on the web somewhere) of the 50mm 1.8 and the 18-55m kit lens and the kit lens, at a little over $100 was sharper in it's range. Yes, the kit lens is f3.5 but it actually works consistently.

Hope this helps,
--Peter

Or the Canon 35mm F/2 for around $230.

Great lens.

Jan Moren said:

People have already pointed out that the 50/1.8 is a bit too long
for a general walkaround lens. The best alternative for that would
be the Sigma 30/1.4 today. I take well over 90% of all my images
with that lens.

If I were me, I'd get the Sigma - and then the 50/1.8 as well since
it's a really handy focal length for portraits and so cheap it's
worth it almost by default.

--
Japan: http://www.lucs.lu.se/people/jan.moren/log/current.html
Images: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jannem/

Click to expand...

stewey10 said:

i know this gets old. i'm buying a 400D and one lens for now.

would you recommend:
tamaron 17-50
tamaron 28-75
canon 50/1.8
canon 17-85/IS

long time very amateur photographer. 1st DSLR. usually take
buildings/people, not landscapes. i grew up with a canon
AE-1/50mM, which was usually fine - occasionaly too wide,
occasionally not enough. i'm really most concerned with IQ. i can
always buy another lens later - and L is out of the picture for me

• the wife would kill me if she found out

Click to expand...

As a former AE-1 with 50mm f/1.8 shooter myself (who also happens to be afraid of his wife discovering his credit card receipts) I think I know what you're looking for. The 50mm 1.8 is a great lens at a very reasonable price (wife shouldn't mind at all) but it won't give you what you're used to seeing with your old setup... If you want a prime then go for a 28mm or 35mm. I haven't been too thrilled with the IQ of my 28mm 1.8, but I end up using it most of the time anyway because I like the FOV--very comparable to my AE-1 setup. I've read some great reviews of the Sigma primes, as well as the Canon 35mm f/2 which is also fairly reasonably priced.
--
Eric

the IS, the length 50mm just isn't long enough sometimes.
get the cheap 35mmf2 for low light or 50mm1.8.
set for a long time. [until you decide for further reach...; )
there's always chrstmas and birthdays!
--



http://netgarden.smugmug.com/
Too many lenses to mention, not enough time ; .