Lens for canon xti

Help me choose a lens, I would like to take better pictures at home in low light, at wedding (for fun) and take pictures at my daughter's high school marching band (volunteering). Canon lens are very expensive with aperture f/2.8. What are my options? My budget is $500.

Camera: Canon XTI
Lens: Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM and
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

Flash: I current own 430ex II and ordered Canon Speedlite 580EX II

Tamron 17-50/2.8

At home in low light, what do you find limiting about the 50 f/1.8?

At weddings and for the marching band, what do you find limiting about the 28-135?

I just picked up the 28-135mm from ebay for like $290 shipped. I had an 8% off coupon (original price was $311)

the 50mm f1.8 can be had for like $100 on B&H

if i'm not mistaken, looks like OP already has those two very same lenses

The tamron 17-50 f2.8 is a very well regarded lens. I felt i needed a little more length so i got the tamron 28-75 f2.8, and i'm very happy with it so far

I am also thinking of Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and 28-75 but some of the review on the net suggest that many time the lens are not sharp and they have to return it several times before they get a good copy. Anyone had a problem with bad lens?

If I ever decide to go to full frame camera, the 17-50 will not work, correct? Do I have any other choices?

Does anyone have picture taken with either one of the lenses in low light situation? I would like to check them out.

You asked: At weddings and for the marching band, what do you find limiting about the 28-135?

For both I feel that the pictures are not sharp. Especially, at the marching band, due to lack of lights at the football stadium, I am not satisfied with the result. Check out the school website: www.chhsband.com and give me your opinion.

Thanks.

rud, check that link in your last post. It's not working. It goes to a for-sale-domain website. Must be off by a letter or need an .edu or something.

Tamron 17-50. If you didn't have a 50, I would say sigma 50, but the Tam 17-50 is excellent AND under your budget.

Try this link instead: http://www.chhsband.or​g/

I looked at some of the images, but since the EXIF has been stripped, I can't really determine anything other than they are very underexposed and not in focus. Low light and poor focus sort of go hand-in-hand. One thing that can help is to change the focus method from automatic point selection to center point only focusing. When you shoot in low light, the AF will be slow so it is very important that you get the focus confirmation light at the bottom of the viewfinder display before shooting.

sell the 28-135. buy the 35/2 and 85/1.8 and you'll have a nice trio of fast primes!

rudvadia wrote in post #7802406
You asked: At weddings and for the marching band, what do you find limiting about the 28-135?

For both I feel that the pictures are not sharp. Especially, at the marching band, due to lack of lights at the football stadium, I am not satisfied with the result.

Without EXIF data, I'll have to talk generally. The night time marching band situation is essentially night time sports. I personally don't have experience in this area, but I believe it requires f/2.8 or faster. The 28-135, at the long end, is f/5.6, so it is at least 4 times too slow. That could explain some of the blur. You're right in your conclusion that you need fast glass. You're also right in that Canon f/2.8 zooms are expensive. The Tamrons suggested above would work for the shorter focal lengths. If you need longer, the 85 f/1.8 and 100 f/2.0 fall in your budget. The 200 f/2.8 used might be just above.

xarqi wrote in post #7799184
Tamron 17-50/2.8

+1. For indoor shooting in lower light, that Tammy can't be beat for the price.

ebann wrote in post #7803244
sell the 28-135

Keep the 28-135. It's a good outdoor walkaround lens.

There are some excellent evaluations of many of the lenses discussed in this thread at the following link: -> -=FAQ=- EF LENS FAQ -READ FIRST- Before asking "What Lens?