Tamron 17-50 non VC or 24-105L paired with 430EX II Indoor for kids shooting

Last bit of dilemma for me. I finally got 430EX II and 50mm f/1.4. Sold 50mm f/1.8 and 18-135mm lens. Definitely going to keep 430EX II.

Now should I get new Tamron 17-50 Non VC or keep my Canon refurbished 24-105L. Subject is my very active 1 year old daughter indoors and sometime outdoors during evenings(during light outside). I don't see 17 to 24mm focal length to be an issue indoors for now. I know price difference is significant between 2 Lens, but I am just starting out.

Not really sure which lens would be good indoors with flash. I could also pair 17-50 with 55-250 which would be an economical option. Not really sure if I am really ready for "L" yet.

If you don't think the 17 / 24 range will be an issue - you can definitely keep the L. Its already there. Unless you have something else in mind for the 600 odd that you might recoup in transaction to get the 17-50 non VC.

First decide what's more important, the 17mm-23mm range or the 51mm-105mm range. I have the 15-85 lens and constantly use under 24mm and over 50mm, both indoors and outdoors, but that doesn't mean you need it. For me, IS would be very helpful even for kids indoors and for most other things really if I hand hold, but maybe not for you. I would also prefer the quiet USM of the Canon by far, but maybe not important to you either. I have an f/3.5-5.6 zoom and an f/2.8 prime and IMO f/2.8 vs. f/4 doesn't make a huge difference. Without flash, with high ISO, maybe you still need about 1/10... so is 1/20 really going to make a huge difference to you...? Maybe. For me it mostly doesn't. You have a good flash. You already have the 24-105. So I'd sacrifice the 17mm-23mm range for all the other advantages, but that's just me.

Having gone through the process myself with a 1-yr old growing to 4 now, I thought the 17-50/55 range fit better than the 24-105, especially considering you have a crop. With a toddler, you're always not too far, so you really don't need the longer range, and I think the 17-23 range would be more useful indoors and with group shots that you'd need with family get-togethers. The f2.8 also helps with indoor shots when you don't want to bother with a flash or just want to be incognito with your shots. The 24-105 fits better on a FF.

Even with f2.8 you won't do do much better (shooting kids indoors) if not using the flash, so f2.8 vs f4 shouldn't be an important factor for you. The important factor is the reach, and I agree with others that having the ability to go to 17mm on a crop indoors is a must.

If you're using flash, the speed difference between the two isn't as important. You already have the L, so keep it. You can always get the Tam later as a wonderful compliment to it.

Having used both (although not too long on the 24-105 since it wasn't mine), I'd really go for any option + a flash, or preferably a wider prime. I'd look at a 28 1.8 or 30 1.4 for indoor kids shooting. I get much better results with my 28 1.8 and occasionally the 85 1.8 than I ever did with the 17-50 on crop.

TweakMDS wrote in post #12857756
Having used both (although not too long on the 24-105 since it wasn't mine), I'd really go for any option + a flash, or preferably a wider prime. I'd look at a 28 1.8 or 30 1.4 for indoor kids shooting. I get much better results with my 28 1.8 and occasionally the 85 1.8 than I ever did with the 17-50 on crop.

Thanks for the reply. I have 50mm f/1.4 which I now use indoors and I get great shots without flash. I got a good deal on 50mm f/1.4, so I am definitely going to keep it. I agree with your point on 28mm Canon and 30mm Sigma which would be another one(s) to add at later point in time when I have budget, but I can always use that focal length stopped down with flash on either Tamron or Canon zoom lenses.

I have both of those lenses but no child

IMO, if you're just shooting a single subject and have regular access to a flash, the 24-105 is the way to go. The extra telephoto range on the 24-105 can be quite handy without getting too much in your child's face. For general photography though, I find that the 24 is sometimes not quite wide enough..

Did some more research and realized the fact that Tamron 17-50 Non VC can't autofocus properly with Canon 430EX II flash. Does anybody have the same problem and know a solution ?

Have heard people getting blurry pictures and knowing later about this problem.

ateet wrote in post #12858695
Did some more research and realized the fact that Tamron 17-50 Non VC can't autofocus properly with Canon 430EX II flash. Does anybody have the same problem and know a solution ?

Have heard people getting blurry pictures and knowing later about this problem.

That's quite interesting - in the process of ordering 17-50 nonVC for myself and owning 430EX2 already. Wondering if this is true.

ps_n_dslr wrote in post #12859466
That's quite interesting - in the process of ordering 17-50 nonVC for myself and owning 430EX2 already. Wondering if this is true.

I've use the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc with the Canon 430ex II with no problems (and a Yongnuo YN 465 flash) - auto focus works great!

Take it from a guy with 5 year old triplets and a 1 year old, the Tamron AF speed is too slow. Keep the 24-105 for the USM or sell for the Sigma 17-50 OS HSM. I had the Tamron and the 24-105, but find the Sigma is THE lens I'd never part with for indoor shots.

your subject is quick moving so you need a quick focusing glass, keep your 24-105L and use it with the flash.

I have bothe lenses and would reccomend sticking with the 24-105 L and a flash.