Lens choice Help

Big thanks for the work in the forum,i'm having great time learning here

i've a 550D,for my first lens purchase i'm looking for 17-50 & 70-200 2.8's

i'm looking to get :

main lens : Tamron 17-50 2.8 Di-II Or 17-50 VC ver - heard alot of great things about the new sigma is a bit $$$$ for me-

which is better?? some say the VC isn't as sharp,but i found mu self shooting in low-light alot,though i get nice sturdy shots with the 18-55 canon kit

so is it more likely -or practical- to use slower than 1/50th,that's the only main reason to get the VC -if there is another IQ + let me know-

Or get the Tamron 28-75 2.8 still confused


for the tele-zoom :

Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM II : i think it's the one for me , in the price range the is Tamron 70-200 and the older sigma 70-200

or a canon 85/1.8 ??

and i'm looking to get the nifty 50/1.8 as well

any thoughts or suggestions , feel free to share

I can't help you with the Tamron 17-50, not having used it. However, I do have the Tamron 28-75 which I absolutely love. For me, the 50-70 range was more useful than the 17-28 because most of what I do is portraits and kid photography, and I knew I could (and eventually did) add a wide-angle lens if I wanted. As for your choice, it depends on what you shoot, and which end of the range you think you'd use the most.

As for the Sigma 70-200, it's a terrific lens. I used to own it; sold it because of the weight and lack of IS, but if these two factors aren't important to you, then it's a great piece of equipment.

I would suggest that if you don't have a problem with getting a non-IS lens in the 70-200 range, where IS is very useful, then it shouldn't be a problem for you to get the non-IS lens in the 17-50 range (where IS is a lot less useful).

Good luck with your choices! All the lens you're considering are really good and you're unlikely to be disappointed whatever you decide.

@ ceegee :
i know it seems odd to ask for the IS or VC in the shorter focal length,but it'd be the main lens for me

for the sigma 70-200 2.8, lack of IS was a reason to sell it...was it this bad??
idont think i'd use it in low light that much
you got the 70-200/4 as i see,what is the difference in your experience?? -IQ,bokeh,overall-

and what about the 85/1.8 instead -or until i get the mony for the 70-200 2.8 IS II canon -
mainly for portraits

thanks for your response

maloush7al wrote in post #12102424
@ ceegee :
for the sigma 70-200 2.8, lack of IS was a reason to sell it...was it this bad??
idont think i'd use it in low light that much
you got the 70-200/4 as i see,what is the difference in your experience?? -IQ,bokeh,overall-

and what about the 85/1.8 instead -or until i get the mony for the 70-200 2.8 IS II canon -
mainly for portraits

A lot of people buy the non-IS versions of this lens with no problem, but I really missed not having IS in low light. My keeper rate went way up when I got the F4 IS. Having tried the experience, I wouldn't now buy another lens in this focal range without IS. But as I said, that's just me. Lots of people love them. The other problem for me was the weight; I found I was leaving it at home more often than not, just so I didn't have to carry it around. The f4 IS is a lot smaller and lighter, and that suits me just fine. As for IQ and overall performance, the f4 IS is superior in my opinion. And it produces nice background blur (see below). Of all my lenses it's also my favourite portrait lens.

The 85 1.8 is a terrific lens but an odd focal length on a crop camera. I like the results mine produces, but don't use it a lot.

Portrait taken with 70-200 f4 IS:

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

it's alot to chose from in the 70-200 range for canon and i know it maybe more a personal preference than the IQ for the most part in lens choice

but your experience is great from the practical part and the real life work,that helps alot
-great pic & nice Dog BTW -

maloush7al wrote in post #12102127
Big thanks for the work in the forum,i'm having great time learning here

i've a 550D,for my first lens purchase i'm looking for 17-50 & 70-200 2.8's

i'm looking to get :

main lens : Tamron 17-50 2.8 Di-II Or 17-50 VC ver - heard alot of great things about the new sigma is a bit $$$$ for me-

which is better?? some say the VC isn't as sharp,but i found mu self shooting in low-light alot,though i get nice sturdy shots with the 18-55 canon kit

so is it more likely -or practical- to use slower than 1/50th,that's the only main reason to get the VC -if there is another IQ + let me know-

Or get the Tamron 28-75 2.8 still confused


for the tele-zoom :

Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM II : i think it's the one for me , in the price range the is Tamron 70-200 and the older sigma 70-200

or a canon 85/1.8 ??

and i'm looking to get the nifty 50/1.8 as well

any thoughts or suggestions , feel free to share

sounds like good choices, the Tamron 17-50 2.8 is a nice sharp "walk around" zoom

back when gas (and cameras) were cheap -

XSi (450D) with Tamron 17-50 2.8

maloush7al wrote in post #12103062
it's alot to chose from in the 70-200 range for canon and i know it maybe more a personal preference than the IQ for the most part in lens choice

but your experience is great from the practical part and the real life work,that helps alot
-great pic & nice Dog BTW -

Absolutely. The Sigma is a terrific lens - great build, great IQ, lightning-fast focusing. If you can live with the weight and without IS, you'll love it.

And thanks for the comment on the pic!

@ watt100:
this is the non VC ?? -noticed a little CA but not so bad -
thanks
about the shevy,close to the 57 model,i'm not sure

for cropped body: get tokina 16-50 f2.8 and 50-135 f2.8. they are damn good.

the tammy 17-50 non-is is superior IQ wise and you should get it if you don't need IS.

i had tested 5 tamrons 17-50's against tokina 16-50...tokie always came out ahead. it is as good as Canon 17-55 IS, without the IS. And way better built.

ceegee wrote in post #12102285
I do have the Tamron 28-75 which I absolutely love. For me, the 50-70 range was more useful than the 17-28 because most of what I do is portraits and kid photography, and I knew I could (and eventually did) add a wide-angle lens if I wanted. As for your choice, it depends on what you shoot, and which end of the range you think you'd use the most.

This is exactly what I did, however I had both the 17-50 and the 28-75, sold the 28-75 thinking I needed the wider one. 30 days later sold the 17-50 for the 28-75 again.

I am assuming you have the 18-55 with your XSI. Download and run this, see what end of your lenses you are at.

If you are consistantly in the 17-27 range, than ignore this post.

maloush7al wrote in post #12103310
@ watt100:
this is the non VC ?? -noticed a little CA but not so bad -
thanks
about the shevy,close to the 57 model,i'm not sure

yes, non-vc
close - '56 Chevy, they dropped the big tail fins in 58

edit:
so if it's

Sigma 18-125mm OS : walkaround + zoom
+Sigma 70-200 2.8 : outdoor portraits
+canon 50/1.8


+tamron 28-75 2.8 OR 17-50 2.8 VC OR Sigma 17-50 OS DC EX HSM -the newer one sounds good-

it's hard to choose this last lens,still

MrLA wrote in post #12103329
for cropped body: get tokina 16-50 f2.8 and 50-135 f2.8. they are damn good.

MrLA wrote in post #12103519
i had tested 5 tamrons 17-50's against tokina 16-50...tokie always came out ahead. it is as good as Canon 17-55 IS, without the IS. And way better built.

the tammy 50-135/2.8 is great but the fact that it's discontinued + the canon ver is way $$$$

i saw side-by-side comparison for the 16-50/2.8 and a "good copy" of the tammy 17-50
tha tamron ver looks sharper

thanks for your reply