Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8

Skunkshocker wrote in post #7334198
Is it very important that a tripod is used with this lens? I am used to shooting handheld with my 18-55MM IS and 55-250MM IS. I am considering buying this lens to replace my 18-55MM IS so that I can take more wider shots and better landscapes and portraits.

Also which would be a better choice?

Tamron 17-50MM or Sigma 17-70MM?

Found one for $359 on

sigma4less.com


Thanks.

You don't need IS unless your shutter speed is too low, and that will only help if you shoot static subjects. IS won't freeze your subject, it only help with lens shake.

At 50mm, as long as your shutter speed is above 1/60s, you should be fine. At 17mm, you can go as low as 1/30s and still be fine. That's rough approximation, it depends on how stable you are.

The Tamron is 1-2 stops faster than the Canon lens you have, so even though it doesn't have IS, it'll still fare pretty good in low <strike>shutter speed</strike> light conditions compared to your Canon. And it will definitely be better at freezing subject's motion.

Between, the Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 17-70, I would go for the Tamron. Constant maximum aperture of 2.8 across the range is a winner here. The Sigma's maximum aperture ranges from 2.8 to 4 if i'm not mistaken.

srsuser wrote in post #7313599
I have the 18-55 IS w/ my 40D right now. Should I buy this over the Canon 50 f/1.4 prime?

Nope IMHO,, owning both would be a good combination.. The Tamron 17-50mm for everyday photoraphy and the 50mm F/1.4 for lowlight stuff..

I have the nifty-fifty, a great performer w/low light shots. I don't see the need for $300 more investment for 1/8 more stop. I have been leaning towards the Tammy but I wanted to see what the opinion between it and the Sigma was. Thank you both.

There is a 2/3 stop difference between 50mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.4 not 1/8.
The nifty-fifty has a slower AF and it has difficulties in low light, you have to be patient with it.
My first lens was nifty-fifty then I got Tammy 17-50mm sold my nifty-fifty and I got a flash. Now I have the 50mm f/1.4 but I have to tell you that the Tammy is the one I use the most.

I'm thinking about buying this lens for my 40D.
I'm kind of worried about because its a non-IS lens.I'm going to shoot day and night.
Would the 2.8 aperture balance out its non-IS feature?

Should I buy this or the sigma 18-50?

Sorry, 2/3 not 1/8. Still learning Photography math.

Thanks.

so i think im going to get one of these lens. i found one for 275 bucks. from the original owner with all paper work and such. seems to be a good deal.

^^ very good deal.

I am in the market for one myself.

I think the two recent photo posts prove that this lens can deliver amazing results while lacking IS.

IS at 50mm is not necessary sorry to tell you that. It's not THAT difficult to hold the camera still enough to shoot at 1/30th a second if you need to, even at 50mm.
This is a most excellent lens that I get amazing results with! If you're thinking about getting it, stop thinking, just do it!

dufrenbk wrote in post #7351289
IS at 50mm is not necessary sorry to tell you that. It's not THAT difficult to hold the camera still enough to shoot at 1/30th a second if you need to, even at 50mm.
This is a most excellent lens that I get amazing results with! If you're thinking about getting it, stop thinking, just do it!

I totally agree

its difficult for me, but i shake alittle bit so that doesnt help. haha.

Anyway, picking up my lens on Monday and im promtly going to go play with it and see what i can do with it. im pretty excited to get a 2.8 lens finally will start pushing for weddings after i get a new body

okay, so while we're on the topic of IS with this lens.. IS is one of the things that I once wished that this lens had. One of the types of shots that I like to do is to introduce motion blur into my compositions, either surrounding my subject or the subject itself. An IS lens would really help in this department because shutter speeds are really slow, but you want to be steady enough to maintain sharpness in the composition where blur is not intended. Anyway, After using this lens for that purpose I stopped wishing for IS in this lens. It is so light that hand holding it at low shutter speeds is quite doable. Sure, it would still be easier with IS but the option for IS (aka canon 17-55IS) is quite a premium. In contrast, my 24-70 "brick" is too heavy to achieve these types of shots.

50mm; f 4.5; 1/30sec: to blur the train as it entered the station.