Printable View
I agree with the Tamron option. Though looking at the ISO charts, the VC version of the lens doesn't seem anywheres near the quality of the non-VC. My dad has the non-VC 17-50 f/2.8, and it's super sharp. Unbeatable for the price. At around $450 it compares extremely well with the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, which is over twice the price. Highly recommended for a fast midrange zoom.
Derrick
Quote:
Originally Posted by peety3
+1 on this approach. It's a good way to learn and figure out what lenses one really needs.
If I only use a 50D and don't have FF bodies, these are the 3 lenses I'm gonna have:
- Tamron 17-50/2.8
- Canon 85/1.8
- Canon 70-200/4L IS
It should come cheaper as well, but you lose a bit on the wide angle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin
I agree...but then, I don't. I know I'm going to get a macro lens, I know I'm going to get a UWA lens, and I know I'm going to get a 70-200 zoom, in addition to the 17-55mm f/2.8 and the 85mm f/1.8 that I currently have. Since a 10-200mm f/2.8 zoom with 1:1 macro capabilities is not going to happen, the questions become which order I get them in and which lens in each class I will choose. What is important is knowing what kind of shooting one does/plans (low light, action, macro, landscapes, wildlife, architectural, all of the above) and picking lenses that meet those needs. Oh - and coming up with the coin to buy them...
How about....
EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 ($699)
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM ($990)
EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM ($1135)
Total = $2824, if this price is too high I'd go with the 17-55 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/4L IS for now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peety3
Very sage advice! Heed it well! That being said, try the utilitarian lenses first, like the 24-105 f/4 L. With the high ISO and the IS of the lens, and you'll be well-served with a very sharp lens wide open. This lens is extremely versatile and on one of my bodies over 50% of the time. That, and the 70-200 f/2.8 L, will be all you need for the vast majority of your shooting.