New lens help?

Okay, let me start off by saying I'm sorry, I know there are probably hundreds of thousands of threads like this. But I've done so much research so many different times I give myself unbelievable headaches everytime I think about a new lens. By the time I'm done completing frustrating myself I've forgotten which lenses I even liked.

So anyway, I am not a professional, I probably on the low end of being a hobbyist. I have been using a DSLR for about 3-4 years now so I'm not a "beginner," I understand the basics, but everything is just or my pleasure and nothing more. My primary subjects are my children and my cats, haha. I have a Canon Rebel T3i, a 50mm f/1.8, and a very old 18-55mm that came as a kit lens with my old canon rebel XS that I no longer have. I literally never use the 18-55 because it is painfully slow and the image quality is very poor (in my opinion). My children are 6 years, 16 months and I am expecting a new baby very soon (June 29th) just to give you an idea of activity levels.

I would like something that I can take inside and outside and get good quality pictures with. I adore my 50mm, but it is really hard to work with indoors because most of the time I cannot get far enough away from what I'm shooting to get what I want in the frame, I end up with lots of tops of heads cut off and lots of very close up faces. I would love to not have to stand on a chair in order to get the new baby's entire body in frame when he's on the floor (I encountered this problem a lot with my 16 month old) even on a chair I sometimes had to cut off toes.

Sorry for the drawn out intro, basically what I'm looking for is a lens I can use everyday, inside or out, to take pictures of my kids. You would think that would be simple to figure out but I am having the most difficult time with it.

I would like to spend $1000 or less (less would be ideal, but $1000 is my max).

What would you reccomend?

How about a Canon 17-55 and a flash? The lens is constant f2.8, which will allow you to shoot indoors without a flash in some circumstances, but you're also going to need a flash unit. You could get both within your budget if you're willing to buy used equipment.

Alternatively there's the Tamron 17-50 or 28-75, both of which are also constant f2.8. They don't focus quite as fast as the Canon, but otherwise they're great lenses. They cost in the $350 to $450 range, which is well within your budget.

Yep, 17-55 and flash is what i went for when in the same situation a few years ago.
If the lens is out of the budget then i also agree that the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is a fantastic choice. The flash needn't be expensive, the Yongnuo YN-565EX is getting fantastic reviews for the money.

Learn to bounce the flash, and use something like a Black Foamy thing and you will have some fantastic, studio looking shots with minimal gear.

As said above, with $1k the possibility is endless

Personally I'd go Sigma 17-50 OS + Canon 85 1.8 + Yongnuo flash.

Thank you so much for the input everyone!

I don't have an off camera flash and I was wondering if I should invest in one as well, so thank you for suggesting that too.

Most bang for the buck:
Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non-vc)
Sigma 30mm 1.4
YN 568EX flash
YN 622c flash triggers

Should keep you within your budget and you get a fantastic 2.8 zoom, a great indoor prime (30mm on a crop is pretty swell indoors), and a flash to use on or off camera when needed.

Duane, is there a significant difference between the non-vc and vc versions of the Tamron that you have experience with? Is the VC not worth the extra money you would pay for it? With me shooting mostly my kids I just wonder if having the VC would help with image quality, since they tend to move pretty fast and unpredictably, but if the difference isn't huge it would definitely be worth the save and adding an extra lens.

Thanks!

KareBear wrote in post #16048935
Duane, is there a significant difference between the non-vc and vc versions of the Tamron that you have experience with? Is the VC not worth the extra money you would pay for it? With me shooting mostly my kids I just wonder if having the VC would help with image quality, since they tend to move pretty fast and unpredictably, but if the difference isn't huge it would definitely be worth the save and adding an extra lens.

Thanks!

With fast moving subjects, you need higher shutter speed to freeze motion. This would render the VC useless. Also, if you went the above route and got a flash, if you were in a situation were shutter speeds got slow enough to need VC you could simply use the flash and up the shutter speed.

The non-vc version of this lens gets amazing reviews all over. I own it and absolutely love it. It renders great colors and has been a solid performer all around. The constant 2.8 aperture is a great asset to have in your bag.

The canon version recommended is even better, but it runs $1k for a refurb lens from adorama. The tamron is by all accounts, very nearly as good.

Another option: Used 15-85 and 430EX II flash. You can get the 15-85 for about $500 and the 430EXII for about $200. That should set you up for just about any situation you can think of, and while the 17-55 is a great lens, you'll pay about $800 for it used and you will still need a flash for indoor use.

KareBear wrote in post #16048935
Duane, is there a significant difference between the non-vc and vc versions of the Tamron that you have experience with? Is the VC not worth the extra money you would pay for it? With me shooting mostly my kids I just wonder if having the VC would help with image quality, since they tend to move pretty fast and unpredictably, but if the difference isn't huge it would definitely be worth the save and adding an extra lens.

Thanks!

VC will help with your movements not the Kids so much and the non VC Tammy is reported to be better / Sharper than the VC version I have the non VC never used the other though .


Oh to add get a Flash and give the 18-55mm a try again or get the IS version if you have the non IS it's supposed to be sharper , and you save some money .

David

Thank you guys! I really appreciate it!

The 15-85 is a great lens but does not quite have the low light ability the 17-55 has. As an ex owner of the 15-85 I always say it is a great lens, which it is, but if I wanted to buy another EF-s lens in that range I would spring the extra for the 17-55 to get the constant f/2.8. The problem is getting the 17-55 in your budget, it is pushing out the top end of it. That said the Tamron 17-50 non VC gets rave reviews everywhere for sharpness, so that would probably be a good one to seriously consider as well and would leave you plenty left over for a flash unit and still not use your whole budget. Good luck.

Since you have 50mm covered I would seriously consider the new Sigma 18-35 f/1.8

Thank you everyone!

I was thinking that before I make any final decisions that I would rent a few of the lenses and just see firsthand which I like more and be able to purchase it with confidence that it will be what I want.

^ That is always a wise idea.