A 17 - 50 mm lens??

[OSUGirl]

I am looking for a lens that I can use indoors for good quality close up shots. I currently have a Tamron 70 - 300mm lens that I enjoy and am still learning to use but it doesn't quite do the job for the indoor close up shots. I had been looking at a 18 -135 Canon lens but the worker at the camera shop actually suggested the Tamron 17 - 50mm lens. Any suggestions? Should I go with the 17 - 50 mm lens or is there a better lens I should look into?
Thank you for your help!!!!!

 

[tirediron]

Close up shots of? What is your budget for the purchase and where is your current gear falling short?

 

[OSUGirl]

mainly family pictures. The 70 - 300 mm is great for outdoor shots of my family while they are being active and I can stand at a distance to get the "in the moment" shot. But I need something more for indoors when I'm only a few feet away say for things like birthday parties or times where the physical space for me to use the 70 - 300mm lens isn't there. The Tamron 17 - 50 mm is running around $600 at the camera shop I typically visit and that price I'm ok with but I don't want to go over that.
Thanks again for your help.

 

[tirediron]

I'm not familiar with Tamron's 17-50 specifically, but generally speaking, lenses in that focal length are at the higher end of a company's offering, and it sounds like it should suit your stated purpose well. Hopefully someone with first-hand experience with that particular lens can comment.

 

[GlennT]

I've had the tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 for over 6 years now and have been very happy with it. Happy enough that I won't replace it until I can get the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L, and I may keep it for the wide end after that.

It a very good lens. It has evolved since I got mine. The AF is noisy, which makes it sound slow, but I've found it to be fast, accurate and sharp in general. There is some distortion on the wide end, or at least that's where I notice it most. Its rarely an issue for me and as good as it gets in that price range. When I do notice, I have had good luck with fixing it in lightroom.

I has a nice minimum focus distance of around 11 inches and a 7 blade diaphragm that makes for a nice smooth bokeh.

Mine does not have VC, so I cannot comment there, but I've heard it works well.

I recently picked up a Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS with a refurb combo to throw on my old camera. For $128, it is fine, but it is closer to $500 new. It feels like the consumer kit lens that it is and the lens creep drive me nuts. The Tamron is MUCH nicer. Built nicer, feels nicer, shoots nicer. The tamron is pretty solid, with no lens creep.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Bo4key]

I've had this lens for over two years and have no complaints. It's light, sharp, focuses fast enough with ample light and is wide enough in tight spaces. Plus, on the long end, and if you are using a crop sensor camera it is "close" to an 85 mm lens which is a nice focal length for portraits.

I also use it on the wider end for landscape shooting and have found it to be more than adequate.

For Example


Mill Creek Falls by FourB Photography, on Flickr


Mickey by FourB Photography, on Flickr

Shot with a Canon Rebel T2i

 

[Bo4key]

I should note that I have the non-VC version of this lens. I didn't feel the Vibration Control to be necessary at these focal lengths. I either use a tripod for landscapes or keep the shutter speed fast enough to avoid camera shake.

 

[OSUGirl]

Thank you all for your help. I really appreciate the input

 

[shaylou]

I would take a close look at the canon 17-55 2.8. That lens is really amazing. It has the IQ of a L lens but not the heavy dudy build quality. I had one for a year and the only reason I sold it was because I went full frame. In my opinion it is a better lens then the one in question.