A&P Newbie Q: Just about to be get a 40D, sigma or tamron?

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by spahndirge, Jun 7, 2008.

  1. spahndirge

    spahndirge Scumbag Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2005
    Messages:
    421
    Likes Received:
    0
    My gf is buying me a 40D body and I've been looking through the forums and looking at what type of lens to get for it (she's just buying the body). I've been looking at the sigma 17-70 f/2.8, but after checking out more lenses, I've seen tamron recommended also (17-50 f/2.8). I'm wondering If OT can point me in the right direction?

    This will be the first dslr camera and introduction into lenses, I've been using a G9 for over year now and want to get into dslrs cause the G9's limitations are beginning to get annoying.

    I like taking low light shots (particularly gigs), macros and landscapes. I'd like to keep to below $600, should I stick with the sigma or consider a few other lenses?

    Here's some of my shots for reference....

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]



    [​IMG]

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/mickdoyle/
     
  2. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    Canon 10 22, Tamron 17 50, Canon 50 1.4 or 85 1.8, Canon 100 2.8 macro
     
  3. Spurious

    Spurious New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,219
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Houston, Texas Bans: 5
    :werd:

    That's pretty much the ideal setup for you.

    If you can only do one, get the Tamron 17-50 and build out from there.
     
  4. tetsuo

    tetsuo And shepherds we shall be...

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    9,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    if he gets the 10-22, wouldn't it make more sense to have the tamron 28-75? that gives him a wider coverage without so much overlap.
     
  5. OlafBeserka

    OlafBeserka girls pee pee when they see me OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Hella Bay Area
    I have the sigma 17-70 and its a f2.8-4.5, not a fixed 2.8. Thats a big drawback against the tamron 17-70 with fixed f2.8. I like the focal range for the sigma, but a fixed aperture would be nice.
     
  6. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    30 1.4 and 85 1.8 for band gigs in low light.
     
  7. tetsuo

    tetsuo And shepherds we shall be...

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    9,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    :werd: i would buy the sigma in a heartbeat if it was a 17-70 2.8 fixed
     
  8. Willey2cool

    Willey2cool New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Messages:
    8,570
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Edmonds, WA
    thats what made me get the tamron. Also its 17-50 on the tamron. So you can either get the extra range with the sigma or the 2.8 through the whole range on the tamron
     
  9. tetsuo

    tetsuo And shepherds we shall be...

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    9,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    i went with the tamron 28-75 . :o
     
  10. sony

    sony Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    112,721
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    sigma 17-70 - no
    sigma 30mm f/1.4 - no
    tamron 17-50 - yes
    tamron 28-75 - yes

    :bowdown:
     
  11. MAD PUNK inDC

    MAD PUNK inDC Sic Semper Tyrannis

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2000
    Messages:
    86,393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    the machine
    the 17-50 Tamron is a great lens.


    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  12. spahndirge

    spahndirge Scumbag Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2005
    Messages:
    421
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks so much! After much research and recommendations from you guys, I've decided to get the Tamron as my first all rounder lens.

    For gigs, is there a huge difference between the 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 30 1.4? I've looked at the canon lens guide (http://web.canon.jp/imaging/enjoydslr/index.html) and would the main difference in these lenses be the zoom, I normally go to small intimate gigs to try and capture good shots, so should I concentrate on the 30mm or 50mm, or am I getting it wrong?

    Thanks a million for all the advice guys! I'm becoming more and more engrossed in lenses :)
     
  13. BabelJoat

    BabelJoat New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2008
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since the Tamron is 2.8 throughout, I would just shoot with that for a bit and see what focal length you're using the most. Should be fine with the 2.8. I rarely shoot wide open with my 50 1.8 and 28 1.8 when i shoot gigs.



    Also, how fast is the focus on the Tamron? Is it similar to HSM on canon lenses?
     
  14. sony

    sony Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    112,721
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    You'd want to go wider (or longer!) than 50 on a 40D for an intimate setting. 50 is too long and at the same time not long enough which would equate to some pretty boring shots. In the same regard, the 28-75mm is very similar to the 50 in that it is a mid-range snooze fest. IMO you should go wider than 30 and when you get that wide having the fastest lens isn't the top priority so you could go with a number of options on the wide end.
     
  15. sony

    sony Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    112,721
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    28-75 focusing is slower and louder than USM
     
  16. tetsuo

    tetsuo And shepherds we shall be...

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    9,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    hsm is sigma's focusing motor, canon's is usm. and the tamron isn't bad, but its not as fast as usm or hsm.
     
  17. BabelJoat

    BabelJoat New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2008
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    :uh: my bad, i always get the stupid names screwed up

    anyway, i was just wondering if the tamron would be comparable to the 24-70 2.8 that i'm saving up for
     
  18. tetsuo

    tetsuo And shepherds we shall be...

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    9,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    comparable in quality (its about 90% of the quality for 1/3 the price), but slower focusing speed than the L
     
  19. sony

    sony Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    112,721
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    for that range i personally prefer the tamron over the canon
     
  20. BabelJoat

    BabelJoat New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2008
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks,

    The focusing speed is very important to me, especially in low light since I primarily shoot dance and theater so I'll probably stick to the canon
     
  21. tetsuo

    tetsuo And shepherds we shall be...

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    9,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    i just used my tamron on my daughter's dance recital last night. it had trouble on a few shots, but the bigger problems weren't the focus. i needed a longer lens and the noise from having to push to 1000 to 1250 iso on my 30d.
     
  22. BabelJoat

    BabelJoat New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2008
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    reach is a non-issue for me since I shoot dress rehearsals. i'm usually standing up in the front row or shooting on the stage itself :)
    i block the view of the lighting people and directors but they can't do anything about it :mamoru:
     

Share This Page