Lens Questions/Tamron 17-50

[wycrich]

I am a beginner with a 50D body and thus has some stupid questions during my lens selection:


Q1. EF24-70mm has a horiz view angle of 84 degree vs.EF 17-55mm has a horiz view angle of 68 degree:


a)Isn't it shorter focal length gives wider angle of view?


b) if I have a 24-70, then it covers what I can take with 17-55?


c) why 24-105 doesn't provide horz view angle in its spec? At least I can't find it.


Q2. If I want to take pictures of my 2 yr old kid indoor, assuminghe is not that cooperative in keepingstill,is it qualified as "freezing action in low light" and thus I need to consider f/2.8?


Q3. If I use a flash with a non-f/2.8 lens, can I achieve "freezing action in low light"and for the situation I mentioned in Q2 above?


Q4. I saw posts mentioning Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 with its price much lower than EF 17-55. I assume it is compatible with 50D? Any people used this before can give me more insight comparing with EF 17-55 or even EF 24-70 (w/o considering the extra 20mm focal length)... I am not a professional and thus not really looking for poster size IQ.


Q5. I am considering the following 2 combinations:


a) 50 f1.8 + Tamron 17-50 (low light & wide angle landscape) + EF 24-105L (general use, travel)


b) 50 f1.8 + EF 24-70 (worrying a little bit heavyto carry around formy kid, and travel)


Not considering a zoom lens going to 200mm yet as I don't think it is necessary for now. If I have a 105mm, then, it is already 168mm on my 50D, which should be ok.


Please advice.

[Daniel Browning]

Q1. EF24-70mm has a horiz view angle of 84 degree vs.EF 17-55mm has a horiz view angle of 68 degree:

That's only true if the 24-70mm is used on a full frame camera (e.g. 5D2). When you put it on the 50D, the angle of view is not 84 degrees, but much narrower.

a)Isn't it shorter focal length gives wider angle of view?

Yes, that's correct.

b) if I have a 24-70, then it covers what I can take with 17-55?

No.

c) why 24-105 doesn't provide horz view angle in its spec? At least I can't find it.

You will find the answer to that question here:


http://community.the-digital-picture.com/blogs/news/archive/2009/09/22/new-site-feature-lens-specifications-and-measurements.aspx

Q2. If I want to take pictures of my 2 yr old kid indoor, assuminghe is not that cooperative in keepingstill,is it qualified as "freezing action in low light" and thus I need to consider f/2.8?

Yes and yes.

Q3. If I use a flash with a non-f/2.8 lens, can I achieve "freezing action in low light"and for the situation I mentioned in Q2 above?

Yes.

Q4. I saw posts mentioning Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 with its price much lower than EF 17-55. I assume it is compatible with 50D?

Yes.

Any people used this before can give me more insight comparing with EF 17-55 or even EF 24-70 (w/o considering the extra 20mm focal length)... I am not a professional and thus not really looking for poster size IQ.

The EF-S 17-55 has better manual focus features, much quieter autofocus, better resale value, and better image quality in some ways, to name a few differences. I still prefer the Tamron 17-50 because of the value. I suggest reading Bryan's reviews for each lens, that should give you a very good impression of each lens.

Q5. I am considering the following 2 combinations:


a) 50 f1.8 + Tamron 17-50 (low light & wide angle landscape) + EF 24-105L (general use, travel)


b) 50 f1.8 + EF 24-70 (worrying a little bit heavyto carry around formy kid, and travel)

I suggest option "a", for the ability to use wide angle as well as higher quality. But instead of the 24-105, I would suggest a different lens such as the 55-250 IS or 70-200 f/4 L IS, the latter of which will blow away the 24-105.

[wycrich]

Thanks for your quick response. Your suggestion is also a good one.Cost of Tamron 17-50 plus 70-200 L is close to one 24-70 and I can still taste the qualities of a L lens with long focal length. I saw there is vc and non-vc option in the Tamron 17-50. I guess it is like IS in Canon. Would it worth to have it for $150 more?

[Daniel Browning]

Would it worth to have it for $150 more?

I think so, yes. (Although as you can see from Bryan's review, the image quality is slightly worse.)

[lcnewkirk]

Q2. If I want to take pictures of my 2 yr old kid indoor, assuminghe is not that cooperative in keepingstill,is it qualified as "freezing action in low light" and thus I need to consider f/2.8?

It sounds like you're in a pretty similar situation to me. About 90% of the photos I take are of my 11mo old son inside my house. My house has lots of big windows (meaning lots of natural light) and I often (40% maybe) have to use f2.2and f2.5 at ISO 400 to get a shutter speed of 1/60 or 1/80. That's at specific times of the day, in specific rooms of the house too, not at night. Those shutter speeds stop my son enough to get good photos, but he's not that fast yet. I've really been wanting to get a 2.8 zoom, but I really don't want to have to go up to ISO 800 to get the shutter speeds. I shoot with a Rebel XS and 50 1.8II btw. Don't forget that IS does nothing to stop action! Sure, you may be able to hand hold at 1/15, but your son will be a blurry blob!

Q3. If I use a flash with a non-f/2.8 lens, can I achieve "freezing action in low light"and for the situation I mentioned in Q2 above?

Yea, it will stop the action. I use a 430EX every once in a while, and even bounced off the ceiling, I can use ISO 100 and 1/200. If you keep the flash on your camera and bounce it, the focus assist works wonders (at least on my 18-55 kit), but I haven't been able to get results that I like very often doing that. I'm getting some radio triggers and umbrellas for Christmas.


Hope that helps some!


Lewis

[photosurfer]

as someone who owns both the tamron 17-50 and the 50 1.8 I'll tell you my general use pattern. I love the tamron and it is on my camera about 98 percent of the time. What I've found, however, is that especially for indoor shooting, although f1.8 is valuable, you need a lot more working distance than can often be easily found indoors. Don't get me wrong, the 50 has its uses, but i would actually prefer to have something more like the sigma 30 mm f1.4, just for the extra width (and extra 2/3 of a stop!). I also use a 580 EX II and i find that it's much more useful than the 50 because i can use it with any lens, and it's a good pair with the tamron because if the light is somewhat dim I can get by with just the f2.8 aperture (which in my experience had been EXTREMELY sharp) and if it's too dark I can just add the 580 for help with AF and exposure. So, in summary, if i had to redo my lens kit, I'd go with the tamron 17-50, 580 EX II, and if i could swing it, the 24-105 L. Also I might get the 50 just for kicks, because it's still pretty darn cheap.

[fred2112]

the Tameron are Awesome for the money as the 50mm 1.8 !


However you should consider that the 50mm 1.8 are no THAT sharp at 1.8 and the AF are VERY inconsistant!....I end up using my 50mm manual focus with the tinny hard to reach ring at F2.6.....at this point you better keep the tameron on your body !


The 50mm 1.8 are VERY...VERY VERY sharp at F4 through !....the blur are very bad !

[wycrich]

So, in summary, if i had to redo my lens kit, I'd go with the tamron 17-50, 580 EX II, and if i could swing it, the 24-105 L. Also I might get the 50 just for kicks, because it's still pretty darn cheap.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

You mean you will prefer 24-105L with 580EXII rather than Tamron 17-50?


Looking forward to Bryan to finish his Tamron 17-50 VC review and comparisons.

[gunslinge]

I have both the 17-50 and 24-105 and 50D in question. The 17-50 does work with the 50D. The 17-50 is better at wide angle and low light situations, the 24-105 is better at everything less ( color, constant, sharper, better built, IS, close focusing, correct auto-focus ) . The 24-105 is heavier and 24mm on a crop sensor camera is not wide angle, if you like that stuff, but it is wide anough for small group shots, and the 105 is very handy for tight face and shoulder shots.


As usual I like DB suggested lens combo, 17-55, 50, and 70-200 f4 is


Although I have the 100-400 zoom instead of 70-200, which is better for wildlife, and race cars for me, ( see two other recent threads of telephoto Zooms ).

[photosurfer]

You mean you will prefer 24-105L with 580EXII rather than Tamron 17-50?


Looking forward to Bryan to finish his Tamron 17-50 VC review and comparisons.

No personally I'd get the tamron and the 24-105 and then put the $ that would be spent for the 50 1.8 towards the 580 EX II instead. Costs a bit more overall but I find the nifty fifty to be less useful than I expected, and the 580 far more useful than I expected.