lens advice

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by smackay, Mar 18, 2009.

  1. smackay macrumors newbie

    Feb 11, 2009
    I have a canon 20d and have the cheapo 18-55 kit lens which I never use. I also have the 50mm 1.4 which I love, but it a bit long on my 20d. Just picked up a 70-200 f4L which is amazing. Now that I have a taste for L series, I want a sharp indoor lens that I can use for shooting my baby, etc. Any suggestions? Any cheaper alternatives offered by tamron? I dont want anything that will be redundant to my 70-200. What would be the next logical lens for indoors?
  2. 147798 Suspended

    Dec 29, 2007
    Here are some to research:
    Tamron 17-50/2.8 ~$350
    Sigma 17-50/2.8 EX Macro (the Macro one, not it's predecessor, which is inferior) ~$350
    Canon 17-55/2.8 IS ~$1,000
    Sigma 30/1.4 ~$350
    Canon 35/2.0 ~$250

    Also, do you have the 18-55 or the 18-55IS. If you're current 18-55 is NOT the IS version, you might find the IS version (which can be found as a refurb for $120) is a major step-up, and might do the trick for you.
  3. gkarris macrumors 604


    Dec 31, 2004
    "No escape from Reality..."
  4. smackay thread starter macrumors newbie

    Feb 11, 2009
    I have just the regular 18-55. I have been looking at the Tamron 17-50 2.8. Have you seen any sample shots from this? Any positive or negative feedback on it?
  5. 147798 Suspended

    Dec 29, 2007
    Many people swear by the Tamron 2.8. I had both the Tamron 2.8 and the Sigma 2.8 to try for 2 weeks. I went with the Sigma, but it was pretty close. I liked the look of the Sigma better (a minor point) and I though the my Sigma copy was sharper than my Tamron copy, but lens sharpness can differ between copies of the same lens. They were close enough that, if I had to, I would re-evaluate the Tamron again. I would say they are both very close in quality and output.
  6. toxic macrumors 68000

    Nov 9, 2008
    I recommend a prime. Both the Sigma 30/1.4 and Canon 35/2 are good lenses. Note that the Canon is noisy, if that makes a difference to you, but the Sigma is about $400...

    And the Sigma zoom is 18-50mm, just to be clear.
  7. 147798 Suspended

    Dec 29, 2007
    btw -- I agree with toxic. Though I gave you a range of choices, I really like my 35/2. I hear the 30/1.4 is even better but a) it costs more, and b) Sigma sometimes have quality issues with their lenses that you have to work out (by either returning and getting another copy, or sending to Sigma under warranty). However, lots of folks who have worked through it to get a good copy of the 30/1.4, say it's a great lens.

    I also just remembered another reason why I took the Sigma (yes, 18-50) over the Tammy. My Sigma copy was MUCH quiter than my Tammy, which was even louder than my 35/2, though I think the 35/2 is not so loud any way.
  8. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Apr 26, 2008
    The EF 50mm f/1.4 would be an excellent lens for taking photos of your family indoors, or low lighting. It costs under $400.00.

    I have the Tamrom 18-50mm f/2.8, and love it. This one replaces the 18-55mm kit lens.
  9. Phrasikleia macrumors 601


    Feb 24, 2008
    Over there------->
    Um. OP has that one already. See first post.
  10. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Apr 26, 2008
  11. apearlman macrumors regular

    Aug 8, 2007
    Red Hook, NY
    It's in your bag: 50/1.4

    You already have a terrific baby-capture lens, the 50mm f/1.4. I use my 50 (the f/1.8) for lots of indoor and low-light stuff like this:


    Of course, if you're frustrated with the kit lens, you should also replace it for general purpose shooting, especially if you like zooms (as I do). I replaced my kit with the Tamron 17-50/2.8, which I love. Other options depending on your budget would be Canon's 17-55/2.8IS or the IS version of the kit lens, 18-55/3.5-5.6IS. Both are considered good lenses.
  12. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Jan 5, 2006
    Redondo Beach, California
    The most obvious choice would be the 35mm prime. It is almost as fast as the 50mm but wider. It's also relatively low cost.

    You could go with a zoom. But you'd want an f/2.8 zoom and none of those are cheap. You already have a slow f/5.6 zoom, no need for another lens like that.
  13. jaduffy108 macrumors 6502a

    Oct 12, 2005
    I would go with a Tammy 17-50....great value. Second choice...Sigma 30.1.4.
  14. jampat macrumors 6502a

    Mar 17, 2008
    17 to 40 F4L is worth a look too. Assuming you have some control over lighting (not to hard with a baby), it takes really beautiful pictures.

Share This Page