60D want to upgrade 28-135mm

I have a 60D with two lenses, 85mm 1.8 and 28-138mm. I really what to let go of the 28-138mm and get something better and faster. I have been looking a quite a few lenses and just can’t decide. I shoot indoor and outdoor portraits as well as low light concerts mostly. Do I sacrifice zoom and IS for image quality and speed. Im looking to spend $500 to $600.

This is what I was looking at:
Sigma 17-50 OS
Tamron 17-50 VC
Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 Macro OS
Sigma 30 1.4
Canon 28 1.8

Have you considered a Tamron 28-75mm? I just got that lens about a month ago and it was awesome on my XSi. I haven't been able to try it out on my 50D yet though, but I will soon....I hope. In store I was playing around with it on a 60D and it seemed to perform great as well. The f/2.8 on that lens is a nice bonus too.

The tammy doesn't have VC but here was my train of thought- VC (or IS) isn't going to stop motion blur for those low light indoor shots anyway soooo....even wide open if I want to prevent any kind of motion blur I'll more than likey still have to up the ISO to get a faster shutter speed so camera shake shouldn't be that much of an issue at 75mm.

I've heard good things about the Canon 28 1.8 but if you're looking for a prime I would personally go for a Canon 35 1.4...that's just me though.

I will also add this about the Tamron 17-50: I've played with both the VC and non-VC versions and for the increase cost the VC version is not worth it in my opinion. The non-VC version had better IQ than the VC version, and at the that focal range it's a wonder that VC is even an option. If you decide on the Tammy 17-50 save your $$$ and go with the non-VC version.

rivas8409 wrote in post #15377166
I've heard good things about the Canon 28 1.8 but if you're looking for a prime I would personally go for a Canon 35 1.4...that's just me though.

Canon 35 1.4 or did you mean F2

Also, I checked out some sample images of the Tamron 28-75. Images are sharp but I would like to have IS when getting above 50mm.

Out of the Canon 28 or Sigma 30 I would go the Sigma 30. I went that way when I had a crop body only and it was a terrific lens. But you need to decide can you live without a zoom lens first. Even though I love primes I also would not want to be without any zooms. I do agree with getting rid of the 28-135 though.

NJKEV wrote in post #15377343
Canon 35 1.4 or did you mean F2

Also, I checked out some sample images of the Tamron 28-75. Images are sharp but I would like to have IS when getting above 50mm.

No I meant 1.4. The 35 f/2 IS USM is priced somewhere around $800 and the 35 f/2 non-IS is around $300 (which the latter fits in the budget you mentioned) but if I was going the prime route I would save up the $1500-ish for the 35 1.4, or looks for one used which you might find one withing your budget or at least close.

Are your hands that shakey that you need IS/VC help to 75mm? I definately understand IS for longer focal length, but I guess "longer" is subjective to each photog.

rivas8409 wrote in post #15378078
No I meant 1.4. The 35 f/2 IS USM is priced somewhere around $800 and the 35 f/2 non-IS is around $300 (which the latter fits in the budget you mentioned) but if I was going the prime route I would save up the $1500-ish for the 35 1.4, or looks for one used which you might find one withing your budget or at least close.

Are your hands that shakey that you need IS/VC help to 75mm? I definately understand IS for longer focal length, but I guess "longer" is subjective to each photog.

Yes, I can get a bit shakey because I love coffee. I just figure that at 70mm on a crop is 112mm.

I'm really stuck on picking a lens. Anyone have sample images?

Your field of view is equivelant to a focal length of 112mm....BUT the focal length is still 70mm. Besides, with a 2.8 aperature if you find yourself in low light you can still get a decently fast shutter speed and camera shake won't be a factor. Believe me....I LOVE LOVE LOVE coffee too.

Check out the sample images page on here. Here's the thread I was browsing that sold me on the Tammy 28-75mm:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=145586

You also can't beat the price, $500 (not including the rebate) and a 6 year warranty for a 2.8 lens.

I would go with the 17-50 OS from Sigma. You can always switch to your 85/1.8 for when you need longer.

Also, I have had the Tamron 28-75 and the focusing in low light was pretty bad from both an accuracy stand point and a hunting standpoint.

The Sigma 30/1.4 would be another good pick if you need faster than 2.8.

In my opinion:

The 28-135 is a great lens, okay, it might not be a "L" lens, but, its great never the less. So by all means, keep the 28-135!

I would say, if you shoot portraits, in low light, the 85 1.8 wich you already have is a great lens.
Altough indoors it might be a little too long.

Now you could get either the 50 1.4 or the 28 1.8, both are great lenses.

Or you could wait a little bit more, and when you have the money, buy a 70-200 f4 L, wich is a great lens too, and not too expensive either.

Its up to you, you know what you need.

I wouldn't recommend either primes, simply because you wouldn't have a zoom. in my experience the zoom just provides too much versatility to live without. I've owned the Sigma 30 and sold it because i never get the chance to shoot @1.4. Really that would be the only reason to buy that lens, if you have the need to shoot @1.4 otherwise any of the zooms you have mentioned would be just as sharp @2.8 as the primes you've mentioned so why give up the versatility?? Its all up to you if you are looking for that beautiful bokeh that (for me) very rarely creates enough depth of field to get my subject(s) in focus. have you considered the canon 15-85?

FEChariot wrote in post #15382112
Also, I have had the Tamron 28-75 and the focusing in low light was pretty bad from both an accuracy stand point and a hunting standpoint.

I will admit, the AF is a slower but I haven't had trouble with mine hunting for focus in low light or missing focus when I've gotten to play with it. I've actually found that my 50 1.8 (MKI) hunts for focus more in low light than my Tammy does. Of course it's all objective to each lens.

In general though I've been happy with my Tammy with the shooting around the house that I've done with it so far. With Christmas just around the corner I've been going non-stop after I get off work and I haven't been able to really take it out and do some "serious" shooting with it.

I love my Sigma 30 1.4, great low light/indoor lens. Very good IQ, sharpness and build quality. You can find them used for $350 and under if you look.

mickeyb105 wrote in post #15384062
I love my Sigma 30 1.4, great low light/indoor lens. Very good IQ, sharpness and build quality. You can find them used for $350 and under if you look.

Seconding this, on a crop body the Sigma 30 f/1.4 is great.

The Tamron 17-50 (non-vc) is also a really nice/easy to use lens, I had one for my 60D and loved it. It took some really sharp pics at f/2.8. The autofocus is a bit noisy and you can't manually focus while in AF mode though.

You might want to look into a 15-85 or something though to get the wide end plus telephoto.

17-55....you can pick up a used one here...got mine for 700 and is like new. Couldn't be happier.

Arob1000 wrote in post #15384101
Seconding this, on a crop body the Sigma 30 f/1.4 is great.

The Tamron 17-50 (non-vc) is also a really nice/easy to use lens, I had one for my 60D and loved it. It took some really sharp pics at f/2.8. The autofocus is a bit noisy and you can't manually focus while in AF mode though.

You might want to look into a 15-85 or something though to get the wide end plus telephoto.

I think I'm going to pull the trigger on either the Sigma 30mm to Canon 28mm.