[vexx786]

Hey guys, I currently have a Canon T1i with a kit lens (18-55mm) and 50mm f/1.8. I want to get a new lens to replace my 18-55, and right now I'm trying to decide between the:

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 ($430)
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC ($600)
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8

I want to to know if VC is really worth the extra $170 between the first two.I plan to shoot mostly cars and some videos. Reviews of these are all very high. I was leaning towards the 17-50mm, but I would like some zoom for when I shoot other stuff. What are you guy's thoughts, opinions, suggestions? Thanks

[Chewy734]

In that price range, you are almost looking at the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L lens. I recommend that one because you already have the 50mm covered, and this one is pretty wide. This lens used to be my workhorse on the 20D, so I highly recommend it.

[M_Six]

If you plan on a lot of low light work, VC is a godsend. But if most of your stuff will be daylight or flash, you really don't need VC on a wide lens like the ones you're looking at. Even without VC, you can get decent images in low light if you're steady and can shoot higher ISOs. The image below was shot handheld at 1/15 second and no IS (VC). It was at 10mm and ISO 800.

[juan@aep]

vc makes a huge difference for video. But the t1i isnt that great for video to begin with. Sell it and get a t2i or t3i.

[E90Mack]

Your 50 would probably be better than those other for video with that body

[PINHEAD]

All those lens are really nice. I am a big fan of Tamron and Tokina lens. For some reason all 3 of the lens you've selected are all great for IQ and has had very reliable auto-focus. Tamron makes great lens for the price, but I heard the non-VC version, has superior image quality when taken in same conditions, ie. on a tripod. VC or IS on canons are useful only if you already have a very steady hand, otherwise its not that useful. It will only save you about 1-2 stops at most, realistically.

The 28-75 is really a gem, I had it before I upgraded to a Canon 24-70L, and I had huge buyers remorse because the Tamron's picture looked pretty much the same unless your above F8, and on a crop body, the 24-70 almost have no advantage over the Tamron 28-75 because the only part that is reportedly to be better than the Tamron on the Cacnon is edge sharpness, and on a crop-body, its cropped out anyways.

I would suggest the 28-75 because of its added range on the far end. Car photography with UWA is played out IMO, go for the longer range at around F3 or 3.5, and the background bokeh is very sexy.

[john9]

Originally Posted by M_Six

If you plan on a lot of low light work, VC is a godsend. But if most of your stuff will be daylight or flash, you really don't need VC on a wide lens like the ones you're looking at. Even without VC, you can get decent images in low light if you're steady and can shoot higher ISOs. The image below was shot handheld at 1/15 second and no IS (VC). It was at 10mm and ISO 800.

Really good............... .. Great pictures,I like them very much.

[HPFREAK]

I dont know if you are in socal, but I have been going to Sammy's in PAsadena and my guy Jeff their has been cool with me trying out a lot of lenses. I have tried Tokin Tamron and Sigma wide angles and did not like any of them. I then tried canon 15-85 and the 17-40 and neither of them were so much better that I had to have it. He agreed as well after looking at the photos, and know it is not an issue with my ability. My test shots were on a tripod with no IS on my kit lense and the same exact settings and tried many F stops to see where the sweet spots were. Across the board my 18-55 was just as good he commented and did not see enough difference at all or any to justify the prices of any of the lenses. He said to keep my kit for that focal range since it looks to give super sharp pics for some reason. He said usually there is a night and day difference between the kit and the 17-40 and not so much the 15-85. the only thing you gain in that lense is the focal range but the barrel distortion was really bad from 15-30mm. At this point I am most likely going to sell my T2i and move up to a Nikon D700 since from what I have read and what he said it is the best at high ISO shots which gives you the ability to do fantastic low light or night shots even with a slower lens. He knows how much I hate noise and said that is the camera I need and the 5D mk 2 will not be as good since that is what I was thinking of getting. Plus the Nikons have better HDR in camera processing I guess. I love HDR.

If you have to have a new lens either go with a super wide Tokina 11-16 or get a canon 70-200 F4L non IS if you cant spend the 1200 for the IS version. That is regarded to be a great lens favored by a lot of professional landscape and some sports photographers who are not doing indoor or low light pics. For that they use the 70-200 2.8 non IS since IS is worthless for moving targets but gives them the extra stops to get those shutter speeds up and it is the same price as the F4 IS but much heavier and larger. On a small body like the T1-T3 it would be really awkward and unbalanced. You would need at minimum a 60D but really a 5D would be the best match for it besides jumping to the crazy expensive 1Ds.

I would go over to the canon forums as well and see taht most will not say to get the Tamrons over a Tokina, and to basically stay away from Sigma as they have too many AF issues and calibration tends to be off. Also I hate the color cast the sigmas give and so does everyone at the Sammy's I go to. They say stick with Canon or Tokina. Zeiss is an option as well.

Originally Posted by vexx786

Hey guys, I currently have a Canon T1i with a kit lens (18-55mm) and 50mm f/1.8. I want to get a new lens to replace my 18-55, and right now I'm trying to decide between the:

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 ($430)
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC ($600)
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8

I want to to know if VC is really worth the extra $170 between the first two.I plan to shoot mostly cars and some videos. Reviews of these are all very high. I was leaning towards the 17-50mm, but I would like some zoom for when I shoot other stuff. What are you guy's thoughts, opinions, suggestions? Thanks