Help...my hubby is driving me insane about his next lens purchase!

I try to balance quality and cost hopefully to achieve value.
One of best values in my bag is the Tamron 17-50 2.8. I call it a superior buy at ~$430US. I've also used a 17-40L and i don't think many could tell the difference in the pics.

johnstoy wrote in post #2367162
Club and all around lens the "L" 28-70mm f/2.8L...All the Pros shooting concert venues indoors use it exclusively...It's an all around great lens...weather and dust sealed too...

The 4.0 lens is not as fast and would not be good indoors without a flash...Anything slower than 2.8 is just not suitable for indoor shots...

The fixed prime lenses are magical indoors...like 50mm 1.4 or the 85mm 1.8...they are somewhat narrow in field of view so the 35mm 1.4 as a prime is also a great fast choice...But just one lens that covers all of these parameters pretty closely is the 28-70mm 2.8L...

I suggest, save, save, save and buy once...

I'd suggest a tamron 17-50 2.8, wider, and just as sharp (if not more sharp) then the L. I agree the focal range might be nicer for indoors, but if he wants this as a walkaround, it's not going to be wide enough.

"Dust Sealed and Weather Sealed", isn't going to help considering his camera is not a 1 series, so is not weather sealed!

This is sooooo Funny, at first when I started reading this post; I honestly thought this was MY wife writing all of this!!!!!!!!!!!! hahahahaha. Then when I saw the Canada part, I knew it wasn't as I live in Ohio.

My question is this; I know that the faster speed lenses do give you better low light pictures. I own the nifty fifty (I guess that is the 50 1.8) and I do love the lens. But, the biggest draw back to the lens, or really that 1.8 or that range, is that it gives you such limited depth of field. I do love the effect it gives you with the blurry background. It just gives you such a finite focus point. I was playing around with that lens, and a lot of the kit lens at my wife's brothers wedding with 430 ex and bounce flash and got very good effects. Still learning the flash as I overexposed some of the pictures. That is a whole other thread.

Is there a way , I know this is the perfect world, That you could shoot at 1.8, or 1.4, or anything faster, say 2.8 or faster, and still get larger depth of field?

riskytrader wrote in post #2367273
Ouch...you're not exactly a nice guy are you?! Ahh well, to each their own!

He is on this site however like the double edged sword the internet is no matter how many reviews you read there are opinions out there that contradict everything which make you second guess your decision. It's like the ongoing sigma vs canon L debate in an earlier thread. I'm sure he'll feel more confident about his decision if I was on board as a lot of ppl are when it comes to purchases.

By the way, he also as an EF 50 mm f/1.8 II lens...well, that's what it says on the box I found.

Thanks for the replies so far.

These were taken with an EF 50mm F/1.8 II lens:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

bphillips330 wrote in post #2367896
Is there a way , I know this is the perfect world, That you could shoot at 1.8, or 1.4, or anything faster, say 2.8 or faster, and still get larger depth of field?

If you are very far away from your subject, you can get a bigger depth of field at 2.8 but I'm talking VERY far away...(I took this two nights ago and it's a landscape at 2.8. I was in a hurry, it was dark and I wanted a fast shutter speed)

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=248595

Beautiful pics Bill.

bphillips330 wrote in post #2367896
My question is this; I know that the faster speed lenses do give you better low light pictures. I own the nifty fifty (I guess that is the 50 1.8) and I do love the lens. But, the biggest draw back to the lens, or really that 1.8 or that range, is that it gives you such limited depth of field. I do love the effect it gives you with the blurry background. It just gives you such a finite focus point. Is there a way , I know this is the perfect world, That you could shoot at 1.8, or 1.4, or anything faster, say 2.8 or faster, and still get larger depth of field?

Consider the DOF increases as the focus point moves farther away! While f/2 with a lens could have shallow DOF while shooting a portrait, move farther away and you have, relatively speaking, lots of DOF!

30mm f/1.8 lens on APS-C focused at 3' has 0.16' DOF.

30mm f/1.8 lens on APS-C focused at 20' has 7.8' DOF.

I third the Tamron 17-50 for a walk-around lense. Very sharp lens, and is well priced, just check www.pricegrabber.com AND check out the Lens Archive thread on it for TONS of sample pictures.

I own the 50 1.8, and honestly I don't think it's anything special, some people argue that it's worth it for the price, but I dislike the lack of sharpness with my copy.

cdi-ink.com wrote in post #2367333
It's just a designator like EX for Sigma. Saying it's a gimmick is implying that there's never any quality behind that red letter, which we all know isn't true. People only ever seem to complain about the price...when they can't or don't want to afford it. I've never heard any rational complaints about the quality.

I have both L and non-L Canon lenses, although both my Sigma lenses are EX. Canon uses and "L" to designate their premium quality lenses, but putting a red L on a lens does not make it a better lens. There are lots of non-L lenses that perform just as well as L lenses such as the 100 mm macro, 50 f/1.4 and all the better EF-S lenses such as the 10-22, 17-55 f/2.8 and 60 mm macro. Some people get so hung up on buying an "L" that they pass up lenses that would be better suited for their purpose.

Sorry if I don't bow down to your L god. It is just a marketing gimmick that Canon uses to designate some of their better lenses to help them sell better.

So I see lots of votes for the Tamron 17-50 and am now leaning towards it. Two questions:
1. The lens mount in the product shots looks plastic, is it?
2. I have heard concerns that it has problems focusing in low light, please comment on this if you have used the lens in low light.

ahmads wrote in post #2369874
So I see lots of votes for the Tamron 17-50 and am now leaning towards it. Two questions:
1. The lens mount in the product shots looks plastic, is it?
2. I have heard concerns that it has problems focusing in low light, please comment on this if you have used the lens in low light.

Hey, I thought you were going to order (whichever one) today
I wish I could help you with the answers to those questions...but I've not used that. The one good thing, if you order from B&H or most camera places have a 15 day return policy, so if you don't like it, you can exchange. Or you could have them order it because you want to see it. I've done that...don't want to buy something I haven't handled, if I can help it.

Permagrin wrote in post #2369900
Hey, I thought you were going to order (whichever one) today

I have not gone to sleep yet so its still today

Did you see this page...
http://www.tamron.com …s/prod/1750_diI​I_a016.asp

doesn't say whether it's metal mount or not (my tamron macro is metal so I know they do have that option)...but it's got a lot of info and some good links.

I think the 24-105 is a awesomely sharp lens and makes a great walk around. It works fine with a flash too! I love mine!

For more wide angle but less reach the 17-40 which is very sharp too!

Good luck on your decision!

There is one thing that I don't think anybody has mention yet, if in case your photo hobby shoul grow and decide that crop sensor is not your thing and FF sensor is more your cup of tea EF-S lenses are useless for FF Camera Bodies. So if you might be interested in the future I would go for the 17-40f4 or the 16-35F2.8L.

The other thing is spending more money on lens may not be what you need to shoot sharper pictures, technique is more important. No matter how good the lens is its the person behind it that makes the picture.