20D: Have 17-35 and 90mm - what should I get for in-between?

[pietzcker]

Dear forum,

yesterday, I finally got my 20D (yay!). I already have the Tamron 17-35 2.8-4 Di and the Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro lens. I'm saving money for the Canon 70-200L, but right now, I'd like to have something to bridge the 35-90mm gap.

So far, I'm undecided between the Canon 50mm 1.4 USM and the Tamron 28-75 Di. I'll probably be doing mostly portrait photography (toddler photo mania) and macro work. I'm inclinced towards the 50mm because that seems to be a nice portrait lens on a 1.6 crop factor body. On the other hand, the Tamron seems quite nice, and it's got a convenient zoom...

What would you guys recommend? Any questions that I should ask myself to help me decide?

Thanks a lot,
Tim

[drisley]

That's a tough one.
I would get the 50mm F1.4 as I love prime lenses.
But, for most the Tamron would be a great lens.

If you are shooting in studio, I would definately recommend the 50F1.4
The zoom wouldnt make that much difference in that case.

[Andy_T]

Both lenses should be great!

The question you should ask yourself is whether you prefer zoom or prime lenses.

On the other hand, if you add another 80$, you could get the Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI and the Canon 50/1.8.

Best regards,
Andy

[pietzcker]

Thanks for your opinions!

This is really difficult. I have contemplated the 50mm 1.8II, too, but I didn't like the bokeh. On the other hand, the Tamron 28-75 seems to have nice bokeh, so that combination makes some sense, too.

I guess I'll pick up the 50mm 1.4 and work with that for a while. I guess having to use prime lenses is good for your photographic skills and makes you think more about what you want in the picture. And if I can't get it to work out for me, I'll get the Tamron, too.

If I have the money :-)

Any other suggestions? It seems that there are not too many alternatives in that sector. And no, that 50mm 1.0 (?) L lens is out of the question...

Cheers,
Tim

[drisley]

The bokeh on the 50F1.8II is actually quite good.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=47225

[phili1]

Before I got my 20 D I used to use a 28 to 105 lens for my portrait's, since my 20 D i bought the Tamron 28 to 75 and it is an awsome lens.

Here is a portrait i did with it.

http://www.pbase.com/phili1/image/34856769/medium

Now most of my portraits are at 65 to 75mm, below that you can get elongated results from forward parts, arms ,legs and noses.

Either lens you get quality.

[phili1]

I do portraits for Real Esate and I use the Tamron 28 to 75 and love it.

I used to use a 28 to 105 lens but like this one better.

Anyway here is a pic for you look at to see if you like it.

http://www.pbase.com/phili1/image/34856769

[rji2goleez]

I've had the 28-75 mm XR Di on my 10D and now on my 20D. It's a great lens. To me your choice is a no brainer . . .

Bob

[Andy_T]

Re: which 50?

... the advantage of the 1.0/50 over the other two is the 1.0 (if you ever need it :lol: )

From what I've heard (I don't have the lens), it does not offer better sharpness or color rendition ... actually it's not as good as the other two.

But the other two are great lenses at great prices ... look at this comparison:

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/

Best regards,
Andy