Need advise in Lens for 40D? very confused

[bengchiat]

hv a look at this.

shoot the 'a day's score' with the combo 3

 

[LukaviZ]

Lol.. for the price you're willing to pay for 17-55, 85 1.8 (total about 1750+ ?), I'd get a tamron 17-50, tamron 90 macro, and a 580ex2. =D About the same cost, perhaps less. Then throw in a 50mm 1.8.

if you're really doing a wedding, you'd need a sturdy flash, Thus the rationale. Many would agree that a flash would be a good buy for this instance. as for lens choice, i feel that the tamron 90 works well for portrait (sharp enough for my liking), and allows you to take still life (depending on your definition.. product photography?) closeup.

 

[calebk]

...
24-105
-much lighter lens
-also excellent build quality
-the best walkabout lens ever
-however F4 so not that good for potraits i find, unless you have a 5D which has a better depth of field

...so if you want a walkabout lens the best lens is 24-105...

A lot of sweeping statements here with a lot of support lacking. Let's start here. When you say "much lighter lens", it's in comparison to the 24-70. However, it is still significantly more weighty than most other conventional lenses.

To say that it is "the best walkabout ever" is just your opinion. You go on to say that it is the best later on, like it is a matter of fact. You don't even support why you say it is the best.

f/4 not being good for portraits is relative. Once again, you are stating it like it is a matter of fact. Portraits does not always mean "eyes-in-focus-nose-out-of-focus", insane shallow depth of field. As with all kinds of photography, there is diversity even within one genre. (By the way, there's no such thing as "better" depth of field (DoF) either. You can have shallow or deep DoF, but which is better depends on your situation.)

17-55
-excellent lens as well
-nice, small and cute
-but don't really like it because of the range.
-IS is kinda pointless!

I always say, sometimes you can step forward to get a tighter shot, but in a small room, you'll never be able to step back to get a wider shot. In your case, you have a 10-22 to cover your wide end, so having a 24-105 as a main lens is not a problem. However, please also consider that the TS is not coming from the same approach as you.

To say that IS is kinda pointless is yet another sweeping statement. A 17-55 is approximately a 28-80 equivalent on a crop camera. Why do you think many people, even full frame users, would love to have IS on their 24-70s? Because it is THE walkabout range. And maybe you can handhold at 55mm on your 1.6x crop camera at 1/4s without assistance, but not everyone can.

now for potraits, i guess the 50 1.8 is good enough. no point spending more on the 85! unless you get the 85L...

I fail to see the logic of your statement here. 50mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8 are very different lenses. Have you even used both of them to be able to say that there's no point in spending on the 85mm?

In this case, we should buy the cheapest of everything. No point spending on more expensive lenses unless we get the L version of everything. You also should buy the 50L instead of wasting your time on the 50mm f/1.8 :dunno:

Their focal lengths are not even the same to begin with, neither is the compression or perspective that they offer. Built quality, as well as image quality, is vastly different, with the 85mm totally trumping the 50mm f/1.8. Hold one and you'll know. Use one and you'll know.

 

[calebk]

Lol.. for the price you're willing to pay for 17-55, 85 1.8 (total about 1750+ ?), I'd get a tamron 17-50, tamron 90 macro, and a 580ex2. =D About the same cost, perhaps less. Then throw in a 50mm 1.8.

if you're really doing a wedding, you'd need a sturdy flash, Thus the rationale. Many would agree that a flash would be a good buy for this instance. as for lens choice, i feel that the tamron 90 works well for portrait (sharp enough for my liking), and allows you to take still life (depending on your definition.. product photography?) closeup.

Honestly, I'd skip the Tamron for event coverage and go for the 85mm f/1.8 instead, or a 50mm f/1.4. It's focusing is far too slow to be reliable in action, plus the Tamron 17-50 will cover most of your close up needs.

Yes I think that flash is more or less not an option here, even if you have large aperture lenses.

 

[Kyosukeno7]

Honestly, I'd skip the Tamron for event coverage and go for the 85mm f/1.8 instead, or a 50mm f/1.4. It's focusing is far too slow to be reliable in action, plus the Tamron 17-50 will cover most of your close up needs.

Yes I think that flash is more or less not an option here, even if you have large aperture lenses.

So Calebk,

Do you think i can consider buying Tamron 17-50mm instead of canon 17-55mm, what do you think will be the consideration factor for both?becos l heard quite good on 17-55mm len-but if 17-50mm is sharp enough and produce good image quality, l can buy this and can save some to buy other stuffs ya..
If can choose between 50f1.8 and 80f1.8, which do you think is better for wedding coverage.

 

[jjj849]

but i rather use the 50 1.4. i mean if you could move around and stuff then the 50 1.4 is good enough for potraits on a crop body. and i find the IQ of the 50 1.4 excellent. however the build needs to be worked on. but 400 for a second hand set is quite resonable!


and i have used both lens before. the 85 and the 50! that just my own personal opinion


the tamron 17-55 has a rather loud focusing right? and it does not have full time manual. and the zoom ring is the other way which i find quite hard to get use espcially is your other lens are canon which goes the other way around.

 

[mpenza]

So Calebk,

Do you think i can consider buying Tamron 17-50mm instead of canon 17-55mm, what do you think will be the consideration factor for both?becos l heard quite good on 17-55mm len-but if 17-50mm is sharp enough and produce good image quality, l can buy this and can save some to buy other stuffs ya..
If can choose between 50f1.8 and 80f1.8, which do you think is better for wedding coverage.

Tamron's quality is good enough.

I'm guessing that you want to gain some experience as a wedding photographer. For that, I would just use the Tamron 17-50 or Canon 17-55 depending on which one u buy, throughout the wedding. It can get almost all the shots you need. If you're inexperienced, you won't really know when to swap lenses too and might miss the shots you want while doing so. Just move your feet to get the right shots.

For me as the main, I'll use one of the wide-angle zooms (have even used the 'lowly' kit lens and sigma 18-125 before and the couples loved the output). When I was a non-serious backup, I ever used a single 10-22 (which can capture whole rooms), a 100mm macro (for shoulder/head shots/close-up), a 20 f1.8 (for ballroom), etc. But I knew the type of shots i want to get and bring along the appropriate lens.