Choosing a general purpose lens for my Canon 450D

Hi Everyone,


I'm new in the world of DSLR's and in this forum. As the headline says, I'm looking for a general purpose lens for my 450D (I think you guys call it an XTI). I've been looking around this page, and other pages, and it has helped a lot. I've now narrowed down my choices to two;


The Canon 17-40 mm f/4 or the Tamron 17-50 mm f/2,8. I haven't got any personal experience with either. I am a student, so I haven't got an enormous budget, at the same time I don't think I'm suffering from parkinson, so I might not be needing IS.


Looking forward to read your answers :)


-Ben

Ben,


I can't tell you about the Canon since I haven't used it. But I have the Tamron and use it a lot. The difference between 2.8 and 4 is significant. The faster lens means you get more usable shots in low light situations without having to push your ISO. The Tamron is sharp and focuses quite fast. Plus you have an additional 10mm of zoom to work with.


Bottom line, I'd go with the Tamron. It's a lens that works in a lot of situations, it's got good IQ and the price is reasonable.


Tim


One note, I wouldn't discount the value of lenses that have IS. But that feature gets more important on lenses with more zoom.

450D = XSI Ben.


Anyhow, what do you think about the 17-55mm f2.8 IS?

That's definitely a superior lens -- especially when it comes to build quality and IS. But I'm not sure that Ben wants to put out an additional $600.

It really depends on your intended application. If you primarily shoot landscapes the EF 17-40mm is a great lens (I haven't used the Tamron), excellent sharpness, color, minimal CA, and excellent flare control. However, if you want to create separation between objects, f/4 is too slow at these focal lengths and you'd be better off with the Tamron.

I would highly recommend the EF 24-105 f4.0 L lens. If I could only have one lens, this would be it. No, it's not fast enough for really low light, but other than that, the focal range and the optics are great. You can purchase a good used one for about $750-$800. In all but one case, I have purchased all of my glass used. Camera bodies depreciate quickly, glass does not.

I have 4 month old 24-105 4.0 IS L I'll sell for $800 if interested.


I need the 24-70 2.8 for what I use this lens for. I never use the IS, rarely use it over 70mm and really need the speed of the2.8.

Both lenses are on Bryan's general lensrecomendations list. I have the Tamron and think it is excellent for the price. I have never used the canon 17-40 but considering it is an 'L' series it is probably worth the extra. If you ever upgrade to a full frame like the 5D you will not be able to use the Tamron but will the canon. Both are a little too wide for my taste but that's just me.


Mark

Hahah, another student photographer Ben, welcome!

I would say both the Canon 17-40/4L and the Tamron 17-50/2.8 are excellent lenses, they are all very worth the money. The build quality of the Canon 17-40/4L is considerably better as it's a L lens. You may also find the Canon to last longer in your hand. If you plan to move up to full frame within years, buying the 17-40/4L makes sense as it offers full frame coverage. However, the Tamron is the best lens for the money for people who're on a budget.

I personally will not go for the Canon 17-55/2.8 IS. In this case do get Keith's 24-105/4L IS for less money:).

I actually can't think of a better lens to recommend to you in this price range, you have picked the best two choices almost (I assume you don't like variable aperture slow zooms).

Benjamin

I've never used the Tamron before but I've used the 17-40/4L as my standard zoom on my original Digital Rebel. It's aGREAT lens. It has superb image quality and excellent build. I used it a lot for night time shots and regularly got good results at ISO 400, F/4, and shutterspeeds down as low as 1/12 sec hand held. When I went full frame, it became a extra wide zoom which is handy for landscapes.

First, I would suggest reading the review on this site for both lenses if you haven't already.


When comparing the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 to the 17-40 f/4, there are several important points:


Advantages of the 17-40 f/4:

• Build quality.
• Brand name.
• Quiet focus.
• Large, smooth focus ring.
• Full time manual focus.
  
• Weather sealed (filter required).
• Does not extend while zooming.
• Compatible with full frame.

Advantages of the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8:

• Double the aperture, which has several important factors:
  
• f/2.8 allows twice the shutter speed (usable 1/60 vs unusable 1/30)
• f/2.8 allows half the ISO (usable ISO 3200 vs unusable ISO 6400).
• f/2.8 allows more control over depth of field and background blur.
• f/2.8 allows activation of more autofocus sensors (on 450D?).
• More zoom range on the long end.
• More resolution and contrast at all focal lengths.
• 55% less money

If you're wondering how the Tamron can be so much better at aperture, resolution, and cost, the reason is this: it's a normal zoom. A normal zoom is very different from an ultra wide zoom, which is what the 17-40 is.


I recommend the Tamron.

I'd definately go for the Tamron 17-50. I own a Canon 16-35/2.8, and the aperture is awesome. If you shoot mainly landscapes and want to buy a full-frame D-SLR sometime soon, the 17-40 will be the better choice, but otherwise, I'd strongly reccommend the Tamron.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben

The Canon 17-40 mm f/4 or the Tamron 17-50 mm f/2,8. I haven't got any personal experience with either. I am a student, so I haven't got an enormous budget, at the same time I don't think I'm suffering from parkinson, so I might not be needing IS.

---

Ignoring Ben's insensitivity (essentially making fun of people with Parkinson's Disease), IS can be very useful. It allows you to shoot at much lower shutter speeds, which translates into lower ISO (better quality, less noise) and/or smaller aperture (longer depth of focus). For example, I can get mostly "keepers" at 200mm with my Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS at 1/15 sec (and often slower, sometimes down to 1/4 sec) by using good shooting technique, compared to maybe 1/100-1/125 sec with the IS turned off. That's as much as 3 stops consistently in reality. (Canon says "4 stops," but they're comparing it to the "rule of thumb" of 1/focal length, which is conservative.) That means that I can shoot at ISO 200 instead of 1600, which makes a BIG difference in quality, or at f/11 versus f/4, for longer depth of focus. (I wish that my 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens had IS!) Of course, IS on a shorter lens will have less impact, but will still be useful. (Only one zoom I use--a Sigma 10-20mm--does not have IS.)


However, there's a problem here: Ben hasn't told us what he wants to DO with the lens. Either of those (or the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS) would do very well for some things, but could be next to useless for others. Some people might be better off with the 24-105mm f/4L IS, for example. I personally use the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS for "walking around" in most situations. It's fast enough outdoors and has reasonable quality--just watch the barrel distortion at the low end! (Since I am mostly doing nature photography, rather than buildings, it doesn't cause much problem.) The IS makes a big difference. I also just got the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and will be trying it out. (I got it rather than the Tamron lens mainly because of the IS.) I will be using the 17-55mm for indoor horse shows*, along with a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (and several primes for really bad lighting). For nature and wildlife photography, trekking through fields and marshes, on the other hand, the 17-85mm is a better complement for my 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS lens, as it doesn't leave as big a gap.


Bryan's top recommendations for "general purpose" lenses are the 17-55mm f/2.8L IS, 24-105mm f/4L IS, and 24-70mm f/2.8L. All of those have very good image quality and overall value, but none are particularly cheap. Ben's choices are also Bryan's for those who don't want to spend as much money. Go a step further down in price and you get the 17-85mm IS lens ($450 vs $700--a bit more than the Tamron lens, but it has IS and a wider zoom range).


*Yes, I know that IS doesn't help when the subject is moving. That's why I wanted an f/2.8 lens versus the f/4-5.6 of the 17-85mm. (I sometimes use a 35mm f/2 or 50mm f/1.8 prime.) However, I'll also be using the shorter zoom for "portraits"--e.g., shots of winners with their ribbons and trophies, where IS does help. It will allow me to use a slower ISO for better quality (lower noise, better color) with ambient light. I've found that people will accept lesser quality on "action" shots than on posed shots. Flash can help, but it can also cause white balance issues when the ambient light is very much different than the flash (as it will be indoors) and can startle a horse. (Some venues do not allow a flash to be used during the actual competitions.) Also, unless one has the time (and place) to set up a couple of flashes on light stands, one is restricted to an on-camera flash (or on a bracket), which can result in rather "flat" images and potentially distracting shadows if you're shooting against a background. (That's why a lot of horse show photographers shoot "winner" photos in the arena, where the background will be relatively far away. At our 4-H Fair, however, we have a "photo op" location with a banner & decorations.)

Back again in front of my computer. Firstly I'll appologize for my comment about parkison's dissease, I'm from Denmark and we have a different kind of humor.


I will be using the lens as a walkaround lens. I will be using it in the urban landscape, in the park, at the beach, in my garden, at family parties and so on. On rare occasion I might take pictures in the church. Basically will I use for a wide variety of things.


I have been considering the 24-105 f/4 is, but then I'll have to live on a tight budget for the next couple of months.


I'm considering to invest in a fullframe body sometime, but it won't be within the next 2-3 years.


Looking forward to see more comments

Hey Ben, I don't think you were being mean with your parkinson comment. A lot of people today worry about being polically correct nad have no sence of humor. If you're not being mean or rude we should all lighten up a bit a nd laugh more.. good shooting Bob

Insensitive doesn't equate to mean...


I do the same kind of thing, often... Just ask my fiancee.

Ben, I own the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS and the 24-105 f/4 IS. I've never used the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, but have read the reviews here and elsewhere.


If I were in your situation (I don't want you overextending yourself budget wise!), I would get the Tamron 17-50. Don't get me wrong, the other lenses are great. But if I think back to when I was a student I would be looking to get the biggest "bang for my buck" -- the best price to performance in a lens. Out of the choices discussed here, I would definitely go with the Tamron. If Denmark is anything like the US you should have no problems selling this lens for a decent amount if you do decide to go full frame, so until you do there is really no need to pay extra for a full frame lens. And it doesn't sound like you need build quality for your everyday shooting needs.


There's my 2 cents to add. Good luck!

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"]I have a Sigma 18-50 2.8 it is a great lens, if you want a standard zoom, but my most used lens would have to be the canon 28mm 2.8, is a very good lens, and at 45mm equivalent has a great perspective.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] It also has the benefit of being less than half the price of the Sigma, plus it is small and light.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] I would recommend either, but I do like the 28mm.