Lens vs lens vs lens

wgp1987 · May 23, 2009

Hey guys. It is the most annoying thread "poster" you know. I have a sigma 28-70 f2.8-4 lens. When i take photos with this lens, the results ... are never satisfying. I REALLY want a Canon 17-85 USM IS lens or the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. I was thinking that the canon might be the better bet. Only reason i am thinking this is because whenever i use a lens with a wide aperature the focus sometimes is too soft or if i wish not to create a shallow DOF and keep the shutter open longer, the results are blurry. (if im saying this correctly) Possibly the IS in the Canon will help when taking photos in lower light more than a wider aperature? I wish not to use a tripod, and the hardest thing is to keep the camera still. I realize the Tamron might be better glass, but what about when i want more in focus and a less shallow DOF? I have a 50mm 1.8 .... maybe the Canon 17-85 is the way to go? What do you think? ... p.s. I dont like to use flash or raise ISO too high.

KmH · May 23, 2009

Ever notice that most pro's use a tripod or camera stand and lights, even outside?

Josh66 · May 23, 2009

wgp1987 said:
Possibly the IS in the Canon will help when taking photos in lower light more than a wider aperature?

It will help to eliminate camera shake, but it will do nothing at all for a moving subject. It will stop the camera from moving (so to speak) - but that's it.

farmerj · May 23, 2009

KmH said:
Ever notice that most pro's use a tripod or camera stand and lights, even outside?

I have also noticed that not only are they using a tripod,....

Most are also using MF or LF cameras.

wgp1987 · May 23, 2009

KmH said:
Ever notice that most pro's use a tripod or camera stand and lights, even outside?

Its not a realization. To me it is undesired. Catching moving subjects is of course important. but i do have a 50mm1.8 that can get the job done in the close rance. When I scrape enough pennies together ill buy the tamron 70-200 f2.8 .... or the canon 70-200 f4L (sacrifice noise for quality, better choice?) BUT that is a differant thread, when the time comes. At that focal length, "17-85" it will most likely be used indoors for handheld still shots. Would you guys say the canon is the better choice for that?

wgp1987 · May 23, 2009

wgp1987 said:
KmH said:

Ever notice that most pro's use a tripod or camera stand and lights, even outside?

Click to expand...

Its not a realization. To me it is undesired. Catching moving subjects is of course important. but i do have a 50mm1.8 that can get the job done in the close rance. When I scrape enough pennies together ill buy the tamron 70-200 f2.8 .... or the canon 70-200 f4L (sacrifice noise for quality, better choice?) BUT that is a differant thread, when the time comes. At that focal length, "17-85" it will most likely be used indoors for handheld still shots. Would you guys say the canon is the better choice for that?

Mainly i was hoping someone knew the differance in the amount of "stops" better the IS would be over the faster aperature. If I put that correctly.

farmerj · May 23, 2009

I would not say the Canon 17-85 is better than the Nikon 16-85. Comparing pictures, it's almost impossible to tell the difference between the two.

As to IS/VR and how many stops? Some say two, some say three.

Experience has shown me two stops. Now, do you pick those two stops up with IS/VR technology? or do you pick it up with glass speed, f/2.8 vs f/4 or f/5.6?

I am fast coming to the conclusion, IS/VR is a marketing gimmick because people could not afford fast professional grade glass.

wgp1987 · May 23, 2009

I have been trying to find someone willing to trade their canon 18-50is lens for my sigma 28-70 f2.8-70 .... then i would buy the tamron 17-50

wgp1987 · May 23, 2009

farmerj said:
I am fast coming to the conclusion, IS/VR is a marketing gimmick because people could not afford fast professional grade glass.

Well thats no enitrely true. Lets say you and I are out on a shoot and we both go to take a photo of a random object. We both have the same camera body, but i have a 17-85 is lens and you have the tamron 17-50 f2.8. Now both of our cameras are set to AV (aperature priority) and have it set to the widest possible aperature. I would be at 4, and you would be at 2.8 (at 18mm, with same ISO). You would acheive a more shallow DOF and i would have more in focus. Im saying this as if there was enough light that the f2.8 wouldnt be blurry, like in the shade of a tree (im just saying) .... Now if you wished to achieve a less shallow DOF you would have to raise your aperature. Then the IS would have the advantage, correct? :hug::

farmerj · May 23, 2009

just how much of a change in DOF is there in 2/3 stop?

And would that be better served by changing from 17-50mm or 23-85 MM (Class) or even 70-200mm? :eyebrows:

wgp1987 · May 23, 2009

farmerj said:
just how much of a change in DOF is there in 2/3 stop?

I apoligize because im not that advanced to know, thats why i am asking.

I had to correct the the Canon 17-85's min av is f4 .. lame right?

haha ....... I really should just hold out to get the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 Is USM for $1000 ........ I am going to jamaica in july, and want a great lens to bring with me .... maybe i should get the 28-135 IS USM Macro?

farmerj · May 23, 2009

Not an issue. Partly why I ask the question. I have a decent idea when I want to use different apertures. But to tell the difference between 1/3, 2/3 and a full stop, I am still working on that.

I still have days I sit down and take picture of something and only change the aperture to see the changes in DOF.

wgp1987 · May 23, 2009

farmerj said:
Not an issue. Partly why I ask the question. I have a decent idea when I want to use different apertures. But to tell the difference between 1/3, 2/3 and a full stop, I am still working on that.

I still have days I sit down and take picture of something and only change the aperture to see the changes in DOF.

I have been thinkin about doing that myself. Barely enough time to shoot now, so im stuck with shooting on the fly with my limited knowledge now. I think the Canon 28-135 IS USM is my best bet for now?

samleo · May 23, 2009

A fast lens is only fast when used at its larger apertures. Basically,the aperure controls depth of field,the exposure is controlled by the iso and shutter.Of course,the three are combined but for creative photography that rule applies,even if it means having to use a tripod.IS/VR can be a godsend at times and has nothing to do with being a cheap alternative to "fast glass";thats my opinion anyway!

Dao · May 23, 2009

If you really concern about DoF, you may want to learn more about it. Aperture is only one of the many ingredients in controlling the DoF.

You can create a photo with deep DoF even with Aperture set to F/1.8.

i.e.

18mm focal length. Aperture at F/2.8, Camera EOS 30D. Subject distance from the camera. 20ft.
Total Dof: Infinte

18mm focal length. Aperture at F/4, Camera EOS 30D. Subject distance from the camera. 20ft.
Total Dof: Infinte

Well, If I am going to choose between the 2 lens you mentioned, I will for sure pick the Tamron. In fact, I own that lens.

From what I read from the review sites, the EF 17-85mm IS USM lens is not as good as the Tamron optically.

Quoted from photozone regarding the EF 17-85mm IS lens

"So at the end of the day the lens is a tad better than the cheapo EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 but it can't really compete with the new EF-S 18-55m f/3.5-5.6 IS or the EF 17-40mm f/4 USM L."

In other words, the kit lens that shipped with XSi is optically better, according to Photozone.

I do think the zoom range of this lens make it better for some people as a walk around lens. And from what I read from the reviews sites, issue with this lens are in the shorter focal length range. If most of the shooting you do is in the longer range, it may not be a bad choice. But for me, I would rather pick up the Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 because it is just optically better and is faster.