Tamron 17-50mm or Canon Prime?

I'm about to buy an XTi and the lens I'm leaning towards is the Tamron 17-50mm with the 430ex flash. My budget is limited and is why I am NOT considering the Canon 17-55mm at this point.

I will be shooting my new born a lot in hopefully available light (and bouncing the 430ex whenever needed) so a fast lens is a BIG plus. I have looked at the Canon 50mm 1.4 but am unimpressed with the blur plots on slrgear.com. Not sure if that would mean crappy real world pics or not....does anybody have pics/portraits they can post with the 50mm 1.4 wide open?

Also, it seems the 50mm on a crop sensor would be to much reach, maybe a 30-35mm would be better for indoor shots? I have looked at the 30mm 1.4 from Sigma (seems a bit pricey and once again not the best sharpness wide open) and the Canon 35mm f2 (which seems like a very nice cheap lens that would have a full stop advantage over the Tamron 2.8 zoom).

Any other recommendations for lenses?

I purchased the Tamron 17-50 not long ago and I have to say that I did good. I think there is variations on the copy so a bit of luck is involved. Mine focuses really fast and it equals the sharpness of my Canon 50 1.4. I say go for it because for your purpose I think a prime would be too limiting.

Any of the lenses you mention are plenty sharp for portraiture and offer excellent contrast at f/2.8 and up. Most large aperture lenses loose some contrast and sharpness below f/2, but the DOF is so shallow there that I doubt you would use those apertures as much as you think.

The Tamron 17-50 is an incredibly versatile lens, whereas the 50 f/1.4 is an excellent low light lens. Different tools for different purposes. 50mm is fine for portraits of a small child. What I would be concerned about is the close focus distance, which is 18" for the Canon 50 f/1.4 and 10.6" for the Tamron 17-50.

At the end of the day it looks like a trade-off between versatility and large aperture. My choice would be (and was) the Tamron 17-50. It is on my camera most of the time. It works well for portraiture, but also makes a great walk around lens, not to mention landscapes.

FWIW, I used a digicam to get photos of my grandchild for the first few years and I note that the quality of the photos has more to do with my photography skills than with the camera and lens. The earlier photos are not as good as the later photos. As my lighting skills and eye for composition developed, the photos got better. You will be fine with any of the lenses you mentioned, but probably happier with the more versatile solution.

-Gene L.
http://ttl-biz.com

I am not convinced that creativity can be taught. However, I do believe that it can be coaxed from its hiding place.

I would get the 35 f/2 and the 50mm f/1.8. They are great lenses to shoot low light portraits on a 1.6 cropper.

Ian
--
bughunter
Pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/iangreyphotography

Gear in profile

'The will to disbelieve is the strongest deterrent to wider horizons.' -Hans Holzer
'It's not having what you want, it's wanting what you've got.' -Sheryl Crow



R U a photographer living in the northeast US? Check out http://www.northeastfoto.com/

The Tamron is excellent; it would seem that quality issues have largely subsided since the first few batch. Mine is excellent; a great walk-round, with a perfectly usable f/2.8. Only one stop slower than the 35/2, and far more flexible. I wouldn't want to be switching between the 35 and 50 all the time.

Eventually, the Sigma might complement the Tamron for low light stuff.

Stuart
--
- -

I had the same dilemma and chose the Tamron 17-50 over primes. My first copy had front focusing issues but my second didn't. So far, I have been very happy with my purchase. The lens AFs quickly and is dead sharp even wide open at all focal lengths.

If you don't need to use apertures larger than f/2.8, the Tamron is a clear winner as you have focal lengths from 17mm to 50mm.

Else, if you are buying from a store that has a satisfaction period (the one I go to does it for 2 weeks), consider the 50mm f/1.8 first. If it's too long and f/2.8 with that lens is good enough, return the lens and get the Tamron instead.

blackstallion said:

I'm about to buy an XTi and the lens I'm leaning towards is the
Tamron 17-50mm with the 430ex flash. My budget is limited and is why
I am NOT considering the Canon 17-55mm at this point.

Click to expand...

The Tamron is good, but the Sigma 18-50/2.8 Macro is even better and around the same price. It is slightly sharper (but really it doesn't matter, they are both good) and it focuses much closer. The Macro name is misleading, it is not in any sense a macro lens, but it does focus pretty close. Also the bokeh (quality of background blur) is very good for a lens of this type.

Be careful when reading reviews of this lens - there is an older version which wasn't nearly as good. The new type has the 'macro' designation and has a 72 mm filter thread. It has been on the market for about 12-18 months, IIRC.

blackstallion said:

I will be shooting my new born a lot in hopefully available light
(and bouncing the 430ex whenever needed) so a fast lens is a BIG
plus. I have looked at the Canon 50mm 1.4 but am unimpressed with
the blur plots on slrgear.com. Not sure if that would mean crappy
real world pics or not....does anybody have pics/portraits they can
post with the 50mm 1.4 wide open?

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't mean crappy real world shots. Most of the time, any reasonable quality prime (and many zooms) will give you a nice background blur. It's only when you have a very fussy background, or bright point highlights, that the difference starts to show.

I think this issue is sometimes overstated. You can make far more difference by choosing a suitable background, using a long-ish lens, and obviously using a wide aperture, than any subtle difference in lens quality.

Have you considered getting the Tamron or Sigma zoom, along with the very inexpensive 50/1.8? Optically there isn't a big difference between the 1.4 and 1.8, the difference is mainly in build quality and handling. While there is no question that the 1.4 is the better lens, the low cost of the 1.8 could allow you to have the choice of two lenses depending on the circumstances.

blackstallion said:

Also, it seems the 50mm on a crop sensor would be to much reach,

Click to expand...

For portraits, 50 mm is good, but for general use it would be very limiting. This is why having two lenses would be a great solution.

blackstallion said:

maybe a 30-35mm would be better for indoor shots? I have looked at
the 30mm 1.4 from Sigma (seems a bit pricey and once again not the
best sharpness wide open) and the Canon 35mm f2 (which seems like a
very nice cheap lens that would have a full stop advantage over the
Tamron 2.8 zoom).

Any other recommendations for lenses?

Click to expand...

If you decide on the two-lens solution, you could consider the Sigma 17-70 instead of the 18-50. The only downside is that it is not constant f/2.8, but since you will have the 50/1.8 for low light that won't matter quite as much. Also the 17-70 is slightly lower cost so that might make the combination with the 50/1.8 even more attractive.

The Sigma 17-70 is one of those lenses that nobody ever seems to dislike, as a search of this forum will confirm.

Steve Balcombe said:

The Tamron is good, but the Sigma 18-50/2.8 Macro is even better and
around the same price. It is slightly sharper (but really it doesn't
matter, they are both good) and it focuses much closer. The Macro
name is misleading, it is not in any sense a macro lens, but it does
focus pretty close. Also the bokeh (quality of background blur) is
very good for a lens of this type.

Click to expand...

Why would you say the Sigma is better? Because of the better Macro capability? I have been going back and forth between the Sigma 18-50mm Macro and Tamron 17-50mm for a long time now. MOST of the reviews online are in favor of the Tamron, but I've seen good reviews of the Sigma Macro as well. Can somebody run down the pro's and con's of both? (ie. IQ parameters, performance, etc)

Steve Balcombe said:

Have you considered getting the Tamron or Sigma zoom, along with the
very inexpensive 50/1.8? Optically there isn't a big difference
between the 1.4 and 1.8, the difference is mainly in build quality
and handling. While there is no question that the 1.4 is the better
lens, the low cost of the 1.8 could allow you to have the choice of
two lenses depending on the circumstances.

Click to expand...

I AM currently considering the two lens option, one of which would be the Tamron or Sigma zoom, and then a prime. I'm just not sure if the wider angle or normal prime would work better for me. I'm thinking I'll get the zoom first, and then see which focal length i graviate towards more often and then go for that prime.

Steve Balcombe said:

Steve Balcombe said:

maybe a 30-35mm would be better for indoor shots? I have looked at
the 30mm 1.4 from Sigma (seems a bit pricey and once again not the
best sharpness wide open) and the Canon 35mm f2 (which seems like a
very nice cheap lens that would have a full stop advantage over the
Tamron 2.8 zoom).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

It seems many people LOVE the Sigma 30mm 1.4, and it is attractive, but expensive. I've been looking at the Canon 35mm f2, but just don't know how much of an advantge that would give me over the f2.8 of the zoom, maybe the full stop advantage of the 1.4 would be more what I'm looking for.

Steve Balcombe said:

If you decide on the two-lens solution, you could consider the Sigma
17-70 instead of the 18-50. The only downside is that it is not
constant f/2.8, but since you will have the 50/1.8 for low light that
won't matter quite as much. Also the 17-70 is slightly lower cost so
that might make the combination with the 50/1.8 even more attractive.

The Sigma 17-70 is one of those lenses that nobody ever seems to
dislike, as a search of this forum will confirm.

Click to expand...

I will be buying the Canon 430ex and bouncing light off the ceiling and walls, so this lens could be a good option over the 18-50mm since it gives more focal range, but I hear it leaves the f2.8 arena VERY quickly......I think i'd rather stick with a good constant f/2.8 and then buy tele in the future. Most of my shots now will be low light indoors, so I don't think I'd use the 70mm end very often.

I vote for the Tamron 17-50.. I have the 50 1.4 as well but the Tamron is on my cam way more than the Canon. The Tamron really gives great results at 2.8 as well. But if your bouncing a 430ex, then 2.8 isnt a issue. Just put it at 5.6 with the 1/125 shutter and your golden. The Canon will get the call if i'm looking for available light or artzy stuff. Hope that helps.

I get results I consider to be very good in real life even at f1.4...

you be the judge:







--
juf2f
http://www.julien.3g-web.ca/

blackstallion said:

Steve Balcombe said:

The Tamron is good, but the Sigma 18-50/2.8 Macro is even better

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

[snip]

blackstallion said:

Why would you say the Sigma is better? Because of the better Macro
capability? I have been going back and forth between the Sigma
18-50mm Macro and Tamron 17-50mm for a long time now. MOST of the
reviews online are in favor of the Tamron, but I've seen good reviews
of the Sigma Macro as well. Can somebody run down the pro's and
con's of both? (ie. IQ parameters, performance, etc)

Click to expand...

Most of the online reviews compare the Tamron with the old Sigma - I know, I read 'em all before making my choice.

The reasons I chose the Sigma were:

• Closer focusing (v. important to me, maybe not to everyone of course)
• Zoom ring rotates the same way as Canon lenses!
• Build quality (but the Tamron is good too.)
• I believe the Sigma just has the edge on image quality, but it is very close
• People complain about the Tamron's noisy focusing (minor point)

The one clear advantage the Tamron has is the extra millimetre at the wide end (which translates to several degrees - it is quite noticeable when you see the two together). Not only was that less important to me, but also I wouldn't buy a 17/18-50 for frequent use at the extreme wide end of the range. If I did a lot of work around those focal lengths, I would choose the 10-22 which is fabulous at 17-18 mm (and below).

according to the pophoto.com SQF graphs (atleast at f2.8). That may be attributed to the fact that popphoto tested what they were actually seeing for aperture ratings on the two lenses and the Tamron was from f/2.74-2.93 and the Sigma from f/2.99-3.03 ouch! I wish I could see how many Sigma's actually are in that range...because it should be rated as a f/3 lens in that case!

Tamron

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/4640/lens-test-tamron-17-50mm-f28-xr-di-ii-af-specifications-and-sqf-page2.html

Sigma

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/4118/lens-test-sigma-18-50mm-f28-ex-dc-macro.html

Photozone (very highly regarded) tests both lenses in their Nikon mount versions:

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Nikkor%20/%20Nikon%20Lens%20Tests/290-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-nikon-test-report--review

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Nikkor%20/%20Nikon%20Lens%20Tests/315-sigma-af-18-50mm-f28-dc-ex-macro-review--lab-test-report?start=1

According to those tests, the Tamron is generally sharper at f/2.8 but the Sigma is sharper when compared at f/4 and f/5.6. The Sigma shows less significantly less vignetting at f/2.8 and f/4 at all focal lengths (at f/5.6 and beyond there is very little with either lens, as you would expect). The biggest difference is in chromatic aberration, where the Sigma is way ahead at almost all apertures and focal lengths.

Seems like even photozone recommends the Tamron over the Sigma though.

What about the Tokina, haven't seem many reviews on the 16-50mm?

blackstallion said:

I will be shooting my new born a lot in hopefully available light
(and bouncing the 430ex whenever needed) so a fast lens is a BIG
plus. I have looked at the Canon 50mm 1.4 but am unimpressed with
the blur plots on slrgear.com. Not sure if that would mean crappy
real world pics or not....does anybody have pics/portraits they can
post with the 50mm 1.4 wide open?

Click to expand...

Don't look at charts and graphs. Look at pictures instead. If you like them, get the lens. If you don't, get something else. This is a great place for sample images along with real world opinions from "average" users.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406

blackstallion said:

Also, it seems the 50mm on a crop sensor would be to much reach,
maybe a 30-35mm would be better for indoor shots?

Click to expand...

Newborns are small and they don't move around much. 50mm is perfect. 35mm would be ok, but you will have to get very close to fill the frame and this can cause distortion.

blackstallion said:

I have looked at
the 30mm 1.4 from Sigma (seems a bit pricey and once again not the
best sharpness wide open)

Click to expand...

Again, pay more attention to pictures than to charts and graphs. The Sigma is sharp at f/1.4.

Here's a 100% crop shot in natural lighting at f/1.4. Shot in RAW and converted in Photoshop. No sharpening applied.

blackstallion said:

and the Canon 35mm f2 (which seems like a
very nice cheap lens that would have a full stop advantage over the
Tamron 2.8 zoom)

Click to expand...

This is also a nice lens at a very good price. I get great pictures from it, but it wouldn't be my first choice for newborn shots if the baby was going to be the only person in the picture.

I've got samples from the 35/2 and others at http://bienvenu.zenfolio.com/f804096070/ if you want to look.

blackstallion said:

Any other recommendations for lenses?

Click to expand...

The Tamron zoom and the 50mm f/1.4 would be a good combination. You could get the 50mm f/1.8 for $200 less than the f/1.4 and you probably couldn't tell a difference in image quality.

The 50mm f/1.8 and the 35mm f/2 make an excellent, affordable prime lens combination. I used these for a long time.

--
Mark-B
http://www.msbphoto.com/

To answer your original question, I've been in the same position. I've had the Canon 20D to shoot my baby in mostly available light for the past 2 years. I started with the 17-85is, then switched to the 50mm 1.4 and the 35mm 2.0. Finally I also purchased the Tamron 17-50.

First off, I would not recommend the 17-85is if you begin to think of that. It's too slow for these purposes. Between the other two choices, I think the shortest answer is that ever since I got the Tamron, I very rarely put the prime lenses on the camera. The Tamron takes great low light pictures.

For me, I think the key is the versatility. The primes worked great when she was still unable to walk or crawl. I had plenty of time to compose the shot I wanted. However, as she got a little older, it became important to have a zoom lens on the camera. The wide angle ability is a VERY big plus.

I think your observation is very perceptive from my perspective. When I shot below about 2.5 with my primes in low light, I found the autofocus tended to be much more "miss" than hit with the shallow DOF. This was especially true as she started moving more.

That being said, if I'm taking an important portrait for the Christmas card, I will still use the prime(s) because the IQ is a little better with somewhat better color saturation. However, for the most part, it's difficult to tell the pictures apart when you print them. This is especially true if you shoot RAW and add "vibrancy" in post processing.

If you want the best of both worlds, you could get the Tamron with the Canon 50mm 1.8 for an extra $70. I used that lens for a while and it's very close in IQ to the 50mm 1.4. As a bonus, it's very small. This makes your SLR much more "carryable". This is pretty important when your already toting around a diaper bag and other baby stuff. I find the 50mm focal length to be pretty usable.

If you do decide to get just 1 prime lens with the Tamron, I would recommend the 35mm Canon or the 30mm Sigma. When I was shooting exclusively with Primes, I found these focal lengths to be much more versitile. I hope this helps.

The Tamron is not a bad lens at all, but it will never be a Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens either. The 430 is an OK strobe, but it is also very limited in a feature sense. Strobes last for decades, so I wouldn't start out with a dead end.

Since you are looking to shoot a new addition to your familly, I would go with the cheap Canon 50 f/1.4, and the 580EX II stobe for now. Get the zoom when you can afford the real deal (17-55 IS), and meanwhile, you will have already purchased two items that represent the best in their respective classes, and that you will never tire of using. Always buy the best products, be patient, and then buy more when your budget is right. The fat 50, and the 580EX are a great start, and will go a long way to record your new addition while you save for the right standard zoom over a year or two.

Do it right the first time, and have no regrets....

--
Voyager

blackstallion said:

Seems like even photozone recommends the Tamron over the Sigma though.

Click to expand...

I wasn't sure what you meant there so I went back to the reviews. I confess I hadn't noticed the conclusion at the end of the Sigma review, which seems to contradict their own test results. In the same paragraph they state: "CAs are about in line with the rest of the gang" - this is simply not true, the Tamron tested much worse on that specific test.

The bottom line, though, is that overall there is very little difference between the two lenses - which is why the subject is so frequently discussed here. I gave my reasons for choosing the Sigma in my first post; clearly they won't apply to everyone.

I've notice 2 different flavors on this..

the f/2.8 Di II LD

and

the f/2.8 XR Di II LD

Tamron site says XR= extra reflective index glass

is this a must have? Also, what would denote an IS on Tamron Lenses?

Tyler

I was VERY close to buying the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 because I thought since it was twice the cost of the third party lenses and had IS it MUST be a far superior lens.

Not so. All the reviews I'm reading on it, especially when compared to the Tamron and Sigma DO NOT warrant twice the cost. Its IQ is comparable to the third party lenses, IS is useless to me at this focal length, and with the possibility of "dust" issues (I know, i've read all the reviews that say the dust doesn't make a difference in good pics, but for the price of an L lens, I expect that quality and little accessories included with an L!!!) its not worth it. I would MUCH rather go with the Canon 24-70L f/2.8 for $100 more.

I'm going with the 430ex because it is smaller and lighter than the 580ex and I don't need the extra featuers of the 580ex.