New 450d (Lens Choices for me)EF50 II / EF-S 17-85 / Tamron 17-50

[existonz09]

I regard myself as below amateur and above noob.. Photography is not new to me but DSLR sure is.. Been sittin infront of my pc for 2 months trying to decide between all the entry level dslrs; also looked at it's pros and cons(aperture, full frame difference, iso bla bla bla) and now i am happy to say i have chosen the Canon 450D.. right now, lens choice is really buggin me..


I have preordered a 450D(body only) and after some extensive research into lens choices,
it has come down to these 3 choices for starters.. I am more into portrait and normal scene shots. Landscape shots(wide or zoomed) is a plus factor for me but budget is the problem so i cant get all...

It will be either the 50mm f1.8 and EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 or just the Tamron 17-50mm

------------------------------------
EF 50mm f/1.8 II (crazy good for it's price)

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (wide range of shooting options but not good at it's widest)

Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical [IF] (like the reviews but a much longer range would had been great, luv the constant 2.8 though)

------------------------------------

I have seen really good shots of the EF 50mm f/1.8 II and although blur(bokeh) is not as pleasing as the f/1.4 counterparts or other macro type lens and one will question it's build quality..

The tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 also what i am interested in.. but i want to ask how good is it's speed to lock onto a subject? and i am still not sure about the difference in mark 1 and 2..
heard about back focus problem in some of these lens.. but extremely rare cause of manufacturers defect ?

i really like the 17-85 range of the canon ef-s .. Ring type USM and IS is really a kick ass option but ppl prefer the lower aperture for say tamron's F/2.8 .. and yes i will be also taking night scene.. It also has quite noticeable distortion problem and CA at it's widest 17mm side as many of u all pros know.. I would really love a lower fixed aperture canon lens with USM and IS but haha it's gonna be way out of my league (talkin about L series)

So what lens should i buy ? any other choices of lens that i may have overlooked in my range which is good ? 24-100 and 28-100mm lens not a viable option unless i got enuff money to buy and cover the lower focal range(super and normal wide angle lens) which is likely not gonna happen anytime soon.. (maybe in 2 to 3years time)

 

[jlkk76]

wow...another sibei long msg...:sweat:

welcome to CS!

What your budget?

 

[bubbagump]

Tammy 17 - 50 was my choice when i outgrown my kit lens.

The IQ is really good! The only downside is the noisy focusing (which i dun really mind) and the the 5 mm short of my kit lens but hey, just walk nearer lor. Hur.

17 - 50 would give you the constant wide aperture (as in ya prime) and the flexibility of zoom range (though lesser than 17 - 85). Then again, 17- 85 cannot compare with 17 -50 in terms of IQ. Many people consider the tammy a cheaper version (about 3 x) of the canon 17 - 55 f2.8 (which many say is the L lens equivalent for APS-C sensor cam).

At the end of the day though, i would recommend that perhaps you will want to start shooting with the kit lens (since u say u are new to DSLR, i assume you have not played with the kit lens before). The experience will come in handy in the future in appreciating the differences that the extra bucks brings in the better lenses.

 

[Octarine]

From your list I recommend the Tamron 17-50. Grab it and start shooting. You can continue pondering till the cow comes home - and the end only shooting will tell you whether it's the right piece of glass. On crop sensor the 50mm end is already longer, no need for the 17-85. You have already mentioned the f/2.8 - so just get it and start shooting. If you want to extend the range later there are plenty of options, be it from Canon or 3rd party.

 

[existonz09]

wow...another sibei long msg...:sweat:

welcome to CS!

What your budget?

Holy Crap i wrote a long reply and now its all gone . Stupid fone just restarted for no reason .(yes i am browsin now thru my fone) Let me simplify it this time round. My budget = canon 17-85 and below . Might consider used canon lens and tamron lens also in very good conditions (like mint to 10 on the scale accordin to clubsnap)
And i think will buy the Ef 50mm 1.8 no matter what my other choice unless someone here can tell me the tamron 17-50 can do the same job as it and even much better . If not then, i will go wid this decision. Its like buyin a freakin HUGO BOSS disposable t-shirt which is on sale 24hrs a year . Where can u go wrong wid that ?

 

[existonz09]

Part 2(just in case my phone decides to hang up again)

But then again one might say to stick to the kit 18-55 for now . Now it has got IS which is better than the previous version. I just fear it will not be enough for me judgin by the sample pics found in review sites . Of course the photographer plays a big roll in the actual quality of the image . But then wont everyone be using a 18-55 kit lens and not upgradin if it was so good at the first place ?

I've to hear the actual users opinion particulary those wid a 17-50 tamron f/2.8 and 17-85 canon f/4-5.6 that it is worth the instant upgrade . Anyone wid both lens here ? Which would u recommend me ?

Also regardin non full frame cameras, i cant seem to get it instantly in my head to account the 1.6x crop factor . Just not used to it . If possible, can someone show me 2shots from a 450d or any other non full frame 1.6x crop factor camera with a tamron 17-50mm ; one shot at it's widest (17) and the other at it's longest (50); both shots from the same point . It will really give me some heads up . I've seen a canon's 17-85 shot range and boy is it sweet . I don have the luxury to go test it out at shops due to some current personal complications .

Lastly i know distortions and CA can easily be fixed on photoshop so my point is should i go wid the 17-85 canon lens which will give me a wider range and worry about the problems in my photoshop ? Good enuff for poster size
? But ppl complain its weakness for shootin at buildings and structures at wide angle .
Help me please . I am going questions after questions wid no clear sense of directions . Advices strongly recommended . Thank u

 

[MelbourneGuy]

As soon as you start working to a budget, you have to make some compromises.

You'll either have to sacrifice the number of lenses you get (for now), the brand (ie original Canon vs third party), or the quality of the lens. Keep in mind if you go for the third party F2.8 lens, you'll sacrifice image stabilisation. Whether that matters to you is subjective, since some people swear by it and others don't think it is overly important (personally to me, if you're going to use it double-duty as a walkaround or portrait lens then I think the IS is important...if you stick it on a tripod for landscapes it is not).

I'd personally recommend starting with the kit lens (18-55 IS). You might complain about distortion etc but you haven't even used it yet to see how bad it is. Get it second hand (cheap), take your shots, learn how to post process to correct distortion etc, then sell it and upgrade when the time is right (and for what it's worth, that's exactly what I did...450D body + second hand 18-55 IS kit lens purchased just this week!).

 

[Octarine]

Full frame vs. crop factor:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml
As long as you don't use a Full Frame camera in parallel nothing much to worry. You'll get what you see in the viewfinder, it's just not as wide as Full Frame.
IS is not really necessary for shorter focal length, easier to handhold. Keep the rule of thumb in mind: "shutter speed should be faster than 1/focal length". Some people include crop factor as well, so then it is "shutter speed faster than 1 / (focal length * crop factor)"
Don't look to much at sample pictures. IMHO that's useless, just a "nice to see". As long as you don't know all settings, all conditions at shooting time and lastly all post-processing you can't really compare. How many people can really recognize which lens was used? That's like guessing the wine yard and vintage from a sip. A very few can, the rest just pretends and makes a big "wahoo". Go shooting.

 

[jlkk76]

TS, why not u try renting the Tamron 17-50 for a day...so much better than ask ppl to post pics lor..

 

[calebk]

I will tell you that the 17-50 is more valuable any day than the 17-85. Really.

 

[MelbourneGuy]

I will tell you that the 17-50 is more valuable any day than the 17-85. Really.

But the IS comes in handy for shooting hand-held in low light towards the narrower end of the focal range. It's all about individual needs.

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

at the narrow end, you're comparing f/2.8 (in the 17-50) with probably f/5 (in the 17-85) or something close to that. So you negate part of the benefits of IS with having a much smaller aperture. Having a smaller aperture also means the image in the viewfinder is darker than on the 17-50. Harder to compose.

to TS, dpreview usually shows a series of pictures from a lens at different focal lengths when they do testing. I'm pretty sure they reviewed the Tamron 17-50.

 

[Ouverture]

at the narrow end, you're comparing f/2.8 (in the 17-50) with probably f/5 (in the 17-85) or something close to that. So you negate part of the benefits of IS with having a much smaller aperture. Having a smaller aperture also means the image in the viewfinder is darker than on the 17-50. Harder to compose.

to TS, dpreview usually shows a series of pictures from a lens at different focal lengths when they do testing. I'm pretty sure they reviewed the Tamron 17-50.

Yes, in dark environment or indoors with limited lighting, 17-50f2.8 pretty much can perform like a prime lens with capability to zoom as well.

I can proudly say that the sharpness at F2.8 is already close or same as my prime lenses (Sigma30f1.4 and Sony50f1.4) which is more versatile.

Unless you are using for group photos indoors, then flashgun is definitely needed as whether whatever lenses you have (IS or not), at F8 and above, everything is slow.

And as some bros mentioned, at price range of $500-600, it's a steal for a good lens with quality to match those that are at least 2-3x more expensive.

You can imagine I forsake the famous CZ16-80 lens for this...so pretty sum up how good this lens is...

 

[Ouverture]

to TS, dpreview usually shows a series of pictures from a lens at different focal lengths when they do testing. I'm pretty sure they reviewed the Tamron 17-50.

Too bad DPReview didnt review this lens, as it seems to favour more on the original manufacturer....

Anyway, here's a good review...

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/289-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-canon-test-report--review

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

I regard myself as below amateur and above noob.. Photography is not new to me but DSLR sure is.. Been sittin infront of my pc for 2 months trying to decide between all the entry level dslrs; also looked at it's pros and cons(aperture, full frame difference, iso bla bla bla) and now i am happy to say i have chosen the Canon 450D.. right now, lens choice is really buggin me..

.
.
.
------------------------------------
EF 50mm f/1.8 II (crazy good for it's price)

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (wide range of shooting options but not good at it's widest)

Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical [IF] (like the reviews but a much longer range would had been great, luv the constant 2.8 though)

------------------------------------

Depending on the kind of portraits you want to take, 50mm on a 450D body might be an awkward focal length. With the crop factor, it's like an 80mm lens on a film SLR. Pretty good for half-body shots, but if you're wanting a wider view, you might find yourself standing far far away.

I still think the kit lens (18-55 IS) is a good buy, especially if you get it 2nd hand. When you really feel like upgrading, post some pics here to justify your reasons. Maybe someone can point out a more cost-effective way to improve the shot...

 

[MelbourneGuy]

at the narrow end, you're comparing f/2.8 (in the 17-50) with probably f/5 (in the 17-85) or something close to that. So you negate part of the benefits of IS with having a much smaller aperture. Having a smaller aperture also means the image in the viewfinder is darker than on the 17-50. Harder to compose.

to TS, dpreview usually shows a series of pictures from a lens at different focal lengths when they do testing. I'm pretty sure they reviewed the Tamron 17-50.

Thanks for explaining, I didn't know that!
This doesn't really apply if you want more of the picture to be in focus (shotting at a higher F number), right?

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

even though you stop down to increase the DOF, the viewfinder is still showing at f/2.8 until you squeeze the shutter release. Therefore the image is brighter than an f/5.6 lens

 

[calebk]

Thanks for explaining, I didn't know that!
This doesn't really apply if you want more of the picture to be in focus (shotting at a higher F number), right?

You don't have to stop down to have your image in focus. You just have to focus accurately.

 

[evilorgi]

18-55 IS aka kit lens, is much lighter and a pretty decent lens. Sharpness is average when wide open and sharpest from f/8 imo. Good for traveling and general walk around shoot.

17-50 is one of the most value for money lens in the market. It's image quality is comparable to some L lenses and close to if not on par with it's Canon's counterpart, 17-55 IS USM. The only drawback with this lens is its lack of IS which might lead to some blur images if in dark conditions.

I upgraded my kit lens to tamron 17-50 and there is no regret at all, if your budget allows go for tamron rather than Canon 17-85. If you will be using it for portraits and landscapes, seldom you will need the extra 35mm.

And i do believe that 17-85 do not have ring-USM, it's micro-USM instead and do not have full time manual focusing? Please correct me if i am wrong here.

 

[calebk]

..
And i do believe that 17-85 do not have ring-USM, it's micro-USM instead and do not have full time manual focusing? Please correct me if i am wrong here.

A simple check to the Canon product page for the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM would have told you that it's Ring USM and features full time manual focusing.