Many thanks for the reply John, I'd just like to ask regarding the Tamron 17-50mm, is it worth spending and extra €100 or so to get the VC version?
My choices seem to be:
€90 for the 'nifty-fifty'
€290 for the tamron non-VC
€390 for the tamron VC
I'll probably give the prime lens a miss since I think I'd find it too restrictive. And I can borrow a basic zoom lens off the old man too keep me happy as well
By all accounts, the non-VC version of the Tamron lens offers better optical quality than the VC version. I was actually suggesting the 50mm f/1.8 in addition to the zoom lens, not instead of the zoom lens. From the pricing above, you could get the Tamron non-VC and the 50mm prime for the same cost as the Tamron VC lens.
How much benefit do you derive from IS on your kit lens? Keep in mind that the Tamron, with a constant f/2.8, will be a full 2 stops faster than the 18-55mm kit lens at the long end. Depending on how soon you need to decide, you could shoot for a day or two with your kit lens IS turned off vs. on, and see if VC on the Tamron is worth the trade-off in image quality (it might be - camera shake can ruin an image quite effectively!).
Ah now I understand, that makes more sense... sort of - can you briefly explain why a prime lens 50mm f/1.8 is worth having when you have an f/2.8 lens that has a maximum of 50mm?
My kit lens was simply an 18-55mm without IS, so I guess I'm not used to the advantages of this feature - I suppose that means I could quite comfortably do without it! And I just read Brian's reviews of VC and non-VC lenses so I see what you're saying about non-VC being the sharper lens.
Thanks again
Also if someone could give a verdict on the Canon EF-S 17-85/4-5.6 IS USM for my situation that'd be great!
Originally Posted by lloydhelen123
Well, it is not as significant as the difference between that prime and your kit lens, for example. But, f/1.8 is 1.33 stops faster than f/2.8. Consider the differences in cost between other lenses with a 1-1.33 difference in aperture - 70-200mm f/4 zooms are half the cost of the f/2.8 versions, the 28mm f/1.8 is half the cost of the 28mm f/2.8, the 300mm f/4L IS is $1250, compared to the $4500 cost for the 300mm f/2.8L IS. People pay a lot of money for that extra stop of light!
Granted, here we're comparing prime vs. zoom. But there are times when f/2.8 is too slow (indoor in weak ambient light, for example), but f/1.8 brings the shutter speed up to an acceptable level to get the shot.
I have used the 17-50 non IS from Tamron on my 400D for a year and it is a superb combination. Since my girlfriend is studying arts history (hence the rapid identification of Neuroanatomists image sample [:P]), I have visited, and photographed quite a few buildings, especially churches in most cities we have visited. The 17-50 is not wide enough for indoor architectural pictures on a crop camera. I use the 11-18 Tamron for these shots, but if I could chose again, I would go for the Tokina 2.8 instead. I believe it has better build quality, it is faster, which is very important for indoor shots, especially since the 400D has substantial ISO noise from 400 and upwards.Moreover, my Tamron show substantial chromatic aberration in the corners.
My low-budget choice for architectural pictures in narrow locations would be the non-IS Tamron 17-55 2.8 and a wide zoom like Tokina 11-16 2.8. I don't know if this is within you budget, but if you get these, you will get two great lenses that will last for years. It would of course be nice with a prime, those are generally the best, but in narrow locations, there is often litte space to move around to fit the building into the frame. It is a balance between versatility, price and image quality.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote