Canon 50mm 1.0 vs 50mm 1.2

[Cory]

I knew someone would ask that question.

The Tamron was my first lens purchase for my 50D, I purchased the body and it at the same time. The Canon 17-55mm was my Fiancee's first lens purchase when she bought her 50D. I didn't know her when I bought mine and she barely knew me when she bought hers (she actually had the same original Digi Rebel I did, plus the stock lens for it and the 100mm 2.8 USM Macro).

I'll probably give the Tamron to my brother as a gift (I've gifted him my original, the first, Digital Rebel, the starter lens that came with it, and the first Canon 70-300 USM with IS for it). He always thinks I'm being overly generous, but I don't think he's ever tried to figure out how much money he's saved me in car and home electrical work and, realistically, I wouldn't have got much for older equipment like that anyhow. My nephew is showing some interest in photography too, so I like to encourage that - he actually took the first photograph we sold off our web site (granted it was bought by my sister... but it's a damn good picture, we even tried to do some post editing and just never could improve on it). The Sigma, on the other hand, that's a bit too pricey for me to just hand it over for free, but if I don't sell or trade it I just might hand that one down too some day.

For the price the Tamron is an excellent lens and is smaller/lighter than the Canon, but I just don't use it anymore. I have a number of B+W filters that fit the Canon and not the Tamron and the two of us (Fiancee and I) are just never shooting with the same range lens at the same time. One of us usually has one of the 10-22mm, 100mm or the 70-200mm while the other is shooting with either the 17-55mm or 24-105mm.

Oh, and regarding the Sigma... I found the 70-200mm L 2.8 IS USM only weeks after purchasing the Sigma. I bought the Sigma to take to England and just found it too large to be convenient for my tastes. When I bought the Canon a few weeks later I found that it took ALMOST as good of shots with a doubler than the Sigma did without, plus the Canon is smaller, lighter and the zoom is internal. Granted the Canon cost a decent amount more even used... but I get far more use out of it because I don't mind carrying it around. I think the Sigma would be great for someone who doesn't want to spend the money on a Canon 100-400mm, but I eventually will. If I can swing it I'll buy it before our honeymoon in August.

[FastGass]

Personaly I would go try the 1.0, it's the 50mm's 50mm. While it's not quite as sharp as the 1.2 it's 2/3rd stops faster and makes a noticeable difference in bokeh and low light. Here is a link to a review by Juza http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=it&article=59 and http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=it&article=105. Right now the english version is down but you can still compare the IQ to the 85mm f/1.2, which is sharper than the 50mm f1/2 and the 1.0 is not that much worse.

Cheers,
John.