Tamron vs. Canon Lenses

I have decided to upgrade from a Rebel XTi to a 40D. I am fairly new to photography, therefore, unfamiliar with lens options. I mostly take portrait, close up photography of my children. I like the background blurred out in alot of the pictures. The store I am purchasing from recommended a tamron 17-35 mm lens - he said it would let in more light than my canon 18-55 mm lens and give a crisper picture. He also said it would blurr out the background easily. I will also purchase another telephoto lens in the future - but any recommendations for now. Should I consider a canon IS lens? Thanks

To be very honest, you should stick with the XTi since you are fairly new to photography. You can then spend the rest on some lenses.
1) 50mm f/1.8 is pretty much standard for portraiture, although some prefer the 85mm or something wider.

2) As for telephotos, the Canon 70-200 F/4L is very good, I'm unfamiliar with other tele zooms from other companies but apparently they're very good.

I'm using a rebel xt. The lenses that are usualy on my camera are theTamron 28-75 (look around on the net you won't find many bad reviews,slower focus speed being the major complaint)and the 70-200f4. I own the kit lens and the 50mm1.8 hardly ever use them. For a budget lens that is sharp and has a constant 2.8 the tamron 28-75 is the way to go!

The Tamron does offer a wider aperture than the kit lens, since it is f/2.8-4.0. So, it will let in more light. However, that alone is not enough to guarantee that you will get the degree of blur that you desire. That is also dependent on the spatial relationship among camera, subject and background.

I second the suggestion of sticking to XTi.

For lenses, I would recommend

1. Canon 50mm f/1.8 for indoor.

2. Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 when you need zoom.

Why upgrade the camera? spend the extra cash on better glass.Decide what you shoot most/want to shoot and by lenses accordingly

pieq314 wrote in post #3940745
I second the suggestion of sticking to XTi.

For lenses, I would recommend

1. Canon 50mm f/1.8 for indoor.

2. Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 when you need zoom.

I'm borrowing the XTi from my mother - therefore I need to get a camera of my own. Do you think the 40D is too much camera for me? What are your reasons for staying with an XTI? The one I am shooting with only has 6 mega pix, so I definately want more. But I also don't want to get the XTi and want to upgrade in a few months. Thanks for all of your input.

I think the bottom line is to buy what you can afford...

Note that the camera isn't the final word when it comes to serious photography. Most dedicated photographers will spend much more on lenses than they do on the camera....

I don't think the 40D is too much camera at all. I would however suggest your purchasing decision not be based on megapixels though. There are other elements to the camera that are more important than megapixels such as focusing speed, burst speed, etc. and once you get more comfortable and gain more experience with your photography skills you will determine which elements are most important to you.

Considering your start point with photography, I don't anticipate you needing to upgrade the XTi within a few months. Having said that though, if your finances allow you the opportunity to purchase the 40D then I would recommend that because if photography does become a more serious hobby for you or even greater, then you wouldn't be as likely to seek an upgrade if you had the 40D.

I think for someone just coming into the dslr world, you will find the XTi a very capable camera. You will hear many people say purchase the XTi and put the money saved into purchasing a nice lense. I agree with this strategy but still contend that if finances are not an issue then definitely look to get the 40D and don't look back!

julie249 wrote in post #3940796
I'm borrowing the XTi from my mother - therefore I need to get a camera of my own. Do you think the 40D is too much camera for me? What are your reasons for staying with an XTI? The one I am shooting with only has 6 mega pix, so I definately want more. But I also don't want to get the XTi and want to upgrade in a few months. Thanks for all of your input.

Do you mean you do not have a camera yet? Or you have a 6MP camera now?

If you do not have DSLR yet, then, 40D is a better camera than XTi (aka 400D). But if you already have XTi, then, it should be good enough (and you can upgrade when you feel you out grow it, but not before). So if your budget allows, get 40D. Otherwise, XTi is good enough.

What is equally (or more) important is your lens collection. They will eventually cost more than the camera itself. In other words, when figuring out your initial budget (that is, you can delay some lens purchase to the future), be sure to include some lenses.

julie249 wrote in post #3940379
I have decided to upgrade from a Rebel XTi to a 40D. I am fairly new to photography, therefore, unfamiliar with lens options. I mostly take portrait, close up photography of my children. I like the background blurred out in alot of the pictures. The store I am purchasing from recommended a tamron 17-35 mm lens - he said it would let in more light than my canon 18-55 mm lens and give a crisper picture. He also said it would blurr out the background easily. I will also purchase another telephoto lens in the future - but any recommendations for now. Should I consider a canon IS lens? Thanks

while the tamron 17-35 is a very good lens it has been superceded by the tamron 17-50, which gives you more reach (portrait ability) and a constant f2.8.

the only reason to choose the 17-35 is if you are using a FF or 1.3 crop camera because the 17-50 will only work on a 1.6 crop.

my guess is the store is trying to unload a 17-35 on you because they no longer sell well. in fact i paid about $450 for my 17-35 and lately i've been seeing them go for under $300.

so if you are going to get a tamron the 17-50 or the 28-75 are much better choices ... tho the former would be a better replacement for the kit lens.

the xti and 40d are both 10mp. personally i'd get the 40d or a 30d (if you want to save $) before i got the xti.

ed rader

julie249 wrote in post #3940796
I'm borrowing the XTi from my mother - therefore I need to get a camera of my own. Do you think the 40D is too much camera for me? What are your reasons for staying with an XTI? The one I am shooting with only has 6 mega pix, so I definately want more. But I also don't want to get the XTi and want to upgrade in a few months. Thanks for all of your input.

You could get a 30D instead, the prices on those are coming down now that the 40D is on the shelves. I waited until the XTi was on the shelves for a few months before I scored my XT at a great price.

Ideally the Nikon D80 + NIkkor 50mm f/1.4 and a SB600 which together with the D80 allows wireless flash. If you want to stick with Canon get/keep the XTi and get a 50mm f/1.4 + Speedlite 430EX.The Tamron 17-35 is too short for portraits and at f/4 it's not nearly enough to give you the DoF you would need.

Note that the OP doesn't own the Xti, she is borrowing it.
So, if you can affors the 40D and a good lens, go for it. If you have a budget (whatever that is ), get an XTi and good glass. You need something that is fast and works in low light, and is wide enough for close ups. I am a zoom guy, so I would say any of the 17ish-55ish f2.8 lenses. But sometimes indoor you may want something like a prime (no zoom, use your feet or crop it afterwards) with 1.8-1.2 aperture.
BTW, I sold my tamron 17-50 for a Canon 17-55 IS, IMHO it was a worthwhile upgrade, but I'm a caffein-a-holic, so I might be shakier than some

Which quality of Tamron is it? Is it one of their better lenses?

I have a Tamron 70-300 LD, and frankly it is pretty poor. Terrible Chromatic Aberrations.