Camera Labs

Hello everyone,

As you might have read in my earlier thread in the Canon forum, i’m new to (D)SLR photography and i’m waiting for the release of the 650D to get into the action. As such, I’m faced with the difficult choice of choosing a decent DSLR body and proper lenses with it. After long consideration I have chosen to go for the 650D as a body. But as this is the lenses forum, I come here with my question about lenses. I heard and read a lot about the starterkit lenses of Canon. Most of these starter lenses are not very good and people often upgrade pretty fast. To prevent a waste of money, i’m looking for alternatives for the Canon starterkit lenses to go with my 650D body.

As a beginner, I lack the knowledge to help me decide which lenses to choose. I hope that the combined experiences of the forum-users can guide me in the right direction. In a way, it already did. I was looking around for Canon lenses to replace their starterkit sibblings and never even thought about going for a third-party lens. Apperently some of the Sigma and Tamron lenses make pretty decent starter lenses, especially for their low cost. I’ve been browsing around, and got some mixed reviews. Does any of you have experience with the following lenses and should you recommend them for beginners to replace the starterkit lenses?

- Tamron SP70-300 F/4-5.6 Di VC USD (Suggested by Popo @ Canon forum)

- Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 di ii vc pzd

- Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II VC LD (Versus Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM)



Thanks in advance!

_________________
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." Albert Einstein

Hi again! Firstly you have chosen a few different types of lenses and then asked which to get. Well which suits your needs most? Are you still looking at getting two lenses like you said in the Canon forum? The tamron 70-300mm is a great telephoto lens. This means it will be great for sports, wildlife ect. However the focal range is not great for everyday photography. The 18-270mm is one of those lenses that was designed to cover all aspects of photography meaning that you wouldn't have to change lens. Unfortunately these lenses do have a downside. The image quality is generally considered to be poor on these types of lenses because of their huge zoom range. The 17-50mm and 17-85mm are standard zoom lenses. This means they are good for general everyday shots. They allow you to go quite wide and have a decent zoom range. The 17-85mm is quite an old lens and as a result the optics are not very good by todays standards. The 17-50mm on the other hand is considered a very good value for money package. From what I have heard it is quite sharp, has decent VC and benefits from a constant f2.8 aperture. This wide aperture makes it good for low light and portrait photography.

Overall... If I could only have one of these lenses it would be the 17-50mm as it is the most convenient lens that covers the most areas of photography. If you tried using something like the 70-300mm everyday you would find you miss a lot of your photos due to the fact you can't go wide enough. A great combination would be the 70-300mm with the 17-50mm. This should allow you to do everything you wanted to. Both of these lenses are considered VERY good value for money. These two lenses would create a package similar to the 18-55mm + 55-250mm that you were considering in the other forum only quite a lot better

Hope this helps,

James

_________________
Camera: Canon 550D with battery grip
Lenses: Canon 24-105mm f/4L, Canon 50mm f1.4, Canon 18-55mm, Tamron 70-300mm,
Accessories: Manfrotto 055XPROB with 808RC4 head, Canon 430ex II speedlite, Lowepro Nova 180AW and Lowepro Pro Runner 450AW

Oh that is so lame, every hot girl who can aim a camera thinks she’s a photographer -Stewie Griffin

Hi James,

Thank you for your reply. When I posted in the Canon forum, I was only considering to buy a starterkit. The responses of the Canon thread got me thinking that these kit lenses are quite bad. I looked around on the internet, and all reviews call the starterkit lenses basic, but suggest that you move on pretty quickly. Now if I know myself, and I reckon that I kinda do, I will get annoyed by the starterkit lenses pretty quickly. I learn fast, and I get quite obsessed when I have a certain goal in mind. Thats why I looked further. As mentioned in the other tread, I'm interested in wildlife photography. For that I need something with range. That's when the Tamron SP70-300 F/4-5.6 Di VC USD came into play. It seems to be an amazing lens.

So then the plan was to get the starterkit lens 18-55mm from Canon. But again, it is bugging me that this lens is quite sub-optimal. That's why i'm browsing around for better options. Since Tamron is overall a lot cheaper and the quality is supposed to be pretty good for the price, i'm looking into Tamron's at the moment. The Tamron SP70-300 F/4-5.6 Di VC USD is basically a given, so i then need something for the lower ranges. The 17-50mm Tamron and the 17-85mm Canon seem good additions to the 70-300mm. The 18-270mm is indeed a nice allround lens. I would consider buying that for my vacation later on in the year, if I only want to bring a single lens.

Basically, I can afford the body, the 70-300mm and a third lens. Therefore i'm asking if people have experience with the 17-50mm Tamron and the 17-85mm Canon. So you would choose the two Tamrons, so you can cover the 17-50mm range, and the 70-300mm range?

_________________
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." Albert Einstein

I too was like you. I bought my camera with the 18-55mm but replaced it about 8 months later with the 24-104mm. It worked out quite well in the end since I was able to save for a L lens. The 70-300mm is a great lens and like you said you have a definite need for that lens so it is well worth getting. For everyday use though the 18-55mm isn't the best. Don't get me wrong I have seen some brilliant images with this lens but there is better. What really annoyed me about this lens is the variable aperture which is one of the reasons I choose to upgrade. As far as I have read the 17-50mm is pretty much the perfect standard lens within that price range. It has a decent focal range, constant f2.8 aperture, is quite sharp and has VC.

Heres a quick review I found. I haven't read it but The Digital Picture is a reliable review source. Don't be put off by some of the negative comments that you may find because you have to remember that this is a fairly cheap lens and that even the most expensive lenses has flaws. A quick skim through though reveals mostly very positive comments.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revi ... eview.aspx

I too have also considered a one lens option like the 18-270mm but they are reasonably expensive and I feel money would be better spent elsewhere and I do not want to compromise image quality. However I can definitely see why people would buy it.

Hope this helps,

James

_________________
Camera: Canon 550D with battery grip
Lenses: Canon 24-105mm f/4L, Canon 50mm f1.4, Canon 18-55mm, Tamron 70-300mm,
Accessories: Manfrotto 055XPROB with 808RC4 head, Canon 430ex II speedlite, Lowepro Nova 180AW and Lowepro Pro Runner 450AW

Oh that is so lame, every hot girl who can aim a camera thinks she’s a photographer -Stewie Griffin

Oops sorry I linked the wrong one again

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revi ... eview.aspx

There isn't much of a review on this one but they do say:

Overall, the Tamron 17-50mm non-VC lens is sharper, has less vignetting, has a similar amount of CA and has less barrel distortion on the wide end but more pincushion distortion on the long end. The non-VC 17-50 is a bit smaller and lighter. Obviously the 17-50 VC has the 4-stop-rated (I didn't test this yet) stabilization advantage.

Considering they say this about the Non VC version:

In the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens, we have a very useful tool. Since it is small and light, we can take it everywhere. Since it is fast (f/2., we can use it in low light and indoors - and to stop action. Since it has very good image quality, we can use it for important shots. This list along with a nice general-purpose focal length range fills the requirements of a huge range of photographic opportunities (I'll let you think of them). For the price, the Tamron 17-50 is a bargain lens.

_________________
Camera: Canon 550D with battery grip
Lenses: Canon 24-105mm f/4L, Canon 50mm f1.4, Canon 18-55mm, Tamron 70-300mm,
Accessories: Manfrotto 055XPROB with 808RC4 head, Canon 430ex II speedlite, Lowepro Nova 180AW and Lowepro Pro Runner 450AW

Oh that is so lame, every hot girl who can aim a camera thinks she’s a photographer -Stewie Griffin

if it was me I would buy the 17-50 non VC tamron and the Tamron 70-300 SP VC USD.
Then additionally consider the Canon 50 1.4 or the Sigma 30 1.4. for low light and shallow dof stuff.

I wouldn`t bother with the 17-85 or the 18-270 instead I would consider taking a compact small camera as a back up and something that is easily pocketed.

Just my thoughts.

_________________
Canon Powershot S95, Canon 7D, 15-85, Canon 85 1.8 USM, Sigma 30 1.4, 50mm 1.8, Canon 100 2.8L IS Macro, Canon 70-300L IS USM+Kenko 1.4 Pro 300DGX, Canon 430EX II and RS 4 Classic

Thank you all for your input. I'm pretty close to knowing what I want.

Only choice left is the 17-50mm VC vs the non-vc. I can emagine that the VC is less needed for this range, and if the quality of the non-VC is indeed better, then I'm thinking about the non-vc (which is also 50 euro cheaper (374 euro for the VC-version and 329 euro for the non-VC)

Downside is that i have to wait 2 more weeks before the 650D is available. Argh... can't wait!




Does anyone have experience with the Tamron 17-50mm VC vs the non-VC?

_________________
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." Albert Einstein

In my opinion VC is essential especially for a lens that you will use for most of your shots. You are right as you increase the focal range VC becomes more essential. However VC allows you to shoot at much slower shutter speeds which can be good. I think they compare pretty similar in most other areas as well so it is definitely worth it if you have the extra money.

_________________
Camera: Canon 550D with battery grip
Lenses: Canon 24-105mm f/4L, Canon 50mm f1.4, Canon 18-55mm, Tamron 70-300mm,
Accessories: Manfrotto 055XPROB with 808RC4 head, Canon 430ex II speedlite, Lowepro Nova 180AW and Lowepro Pro Runner 450AW

Oh that is so lame, every hot girl who can aim a camera thinks she’s a photographer -Stewie Griffin

yes VC or IS or VR is worth it and it would come in handy. 2.8 still isn` that bright and if the price difference isn`t that much, its worth it even if there is a slight drop in image quality.

I think saving the money and putting it towards a 1.4 aperture lens is worth considering, but only because in my experience I often want a higher shutter speed to freeze people in low light and 2.8 even with vc would just give me motion blur. If motion blur isn`t an issue and you take pictures of stationary subjects in low light its well worth having.

_________________
Canon Powershot S95, Canon 7D, 15-85, Canon 85 1.8 USM, Sigma 30 1.4, 50mm 1.8, Canon 100 2.8L IS Macro, Canon 70-300L IS USM+Kenko 1.4 Pro 300DGX, Canon 430EX II and RS 4 Classic

Darnit, I can't make up my mind on the 17-50mm vc VS the 17-50mm non-vc. The non-vc is cheaper, and apperently delivers a bit better quality. Though having VC could be very usefull for a general lens.

Help anyone! Is the VC worth the quality loss?

_________________
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." Albert Einstein

if you are likely to use the DSLR for video definitely get the vc version, otherwise its your choice, its a personal thing.
I personally wouldn`t bother, I would rather get a large aperture prime.

_________________
Canon Powershot S95, Canon 7D, 15-85, Canon 85 1.8 USM, Sigma 30 1.4, 50mm 1.8, Canon 100 2.8L IS Macro, Canon 70-300L IS USM+Kenko 1.4 Pro 300DGX, Canon 430EX II and RS 4 Classic