Canon T3i - Recommended Lenses

[pars]

Hi all,

I just got my new Canon T3i that comes with the [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II Lens kit. I have researched and read many different reviews and forums regarding this particular lens and model. The lens is generally not being praised as a good and practical lens. I like to do all different types of photography such as [/FONT]portrait, wedding and low-light photography, potentially action, sports and taking pictures of some close objects such as flowers and ...

I have ordered the Canon 50mm F/1.8 as well Canon 70-300 F/3.5-5.6

I am contemplating selling the kit lens 18-55 and replace it with Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] which is highly praised.

I was wondering if this would be a good move or you may have any other suggestions as what lens i should get. Please note that I am in a very tight budget and can't afford expensive lenses at the moment.

Thanks a lot for your advice(s) in advance

 

[MLeeK]

The tamron you mention is a very nice lens. I use it quite a bit. My biggest regret with it is that I now have full frame cameras and it's not full frame compatible. Wish I had purchased the Tamron 28-75 instead.
I also find myself getting into trouble in the 17-24mm range with distortion. I forget when I am on a crop sensor and have to fix the barrel distortion in post or have curved lines. It's a fairly easy fix if you know what you are doing in LightRoom or Adobe Camera Raw. Just a PITA step.

 

[Big Mike]

Welcome to the forum.

Firstly, don't think too badly of the EF-S 18-55mm lens. It's reputation on the internet is much worse that it's actual performance. I think that because it's so light and cheap feeling compared to most other lenses. If money is tight, you may want to hold off on the upgrade and just see for yourself, what you can do with the lens.

Now that being said, there are many, many lenses that are 'better' than the 'kit' lens. Like MLeeK, I used the Tamron 17-50mm when I had 'crop frame' sensors but I upgraded to full frame cameras and the lens doesn't work with full frame so I had to sell it.
It's a great lens, but the biggest benefit is the performance cost ratio. The Canon EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS, is a better lens, but it cost 2-3 times as much. So for $400-$500, you get great performance with the Tamron.

 

[ronlane]

Mike/MLeek,

How does the Tamron 17-50mm compare to the Canon 24-70 L lens? Other than cost, but I have seen the canon used under $900 and it will work with full frame.

 

[Big Mike]

The obvious difference is the focal length. I don't like the 24-70mm range on a crop camera, 24mm just isn't wide enough for your 'main' lens. And of course, the 24-70mm is a full frame lens while the 17-50mm Tamron is for crop sensors only.

As far as I can tell, the 24-70mm is capable of better image quality (especially the new II version), but it's also a lot more expensive.
The Canon 24-70mm is a bit of an enigma in that it has been the workhorse lens for most pros, for years...but those who are very picky say that it has focus accuracy issues (or at least, many copies do...and it's a pain to find one that is spot on).
The Tamron's focus motor is louder and slower than the Canon USM motor.
The Canon is at least twice as big and probably three times as heavy.
Like most Canon/Nikon to Sigma/Tamron comparisons...the Canon/Nikon is the better lens but cost 2-3 times as much.

A better comparison might be the Tamron 28-80mm F2.8 vs the Canon 24-70mm. I bought the 28-80mm F2.8 and I've quite disappointed. At F2.8, the sharpness is terrible, but it's decent at F4.
Of course, there is the new Tamron 24-70mm F2.8 VC (but it's $1300).

 

[ronlane]

Thanks Mike. Is there a huge difference from 17mm to 24mm? I've been told (I know, it wasn't really safe advice) that most people can't tell a big difference from 250 to 300 mm. (This was when I was getting my lenses with my kit).

I have my mind set on the Canon 24-105 f/4L, but I noticed that the 24-70 was something like 2.8 and I know that extra f stop can help in certain things.

 

[Big Mike]

The difference between 17mm and 24mm (in terms of angle of view) is huge. http://www.pbase.com/image/71828237/large.jpg
Think of it as a 30% difference.

The difference between 250mm and 300mm is much less noticeable.

I have my mind set on the Canon 24-105 f/4L, but I noticed that the 24-70 was something like 2.8 and I know that extra f stop can help in certain things.

A larger maximum aperture is always a good option, it gives you the ability to get a faster shutter speed and a shallower DOF. But the difference between F2.8 and F4 is one stop...which does help, but not a whole lot.

 

[ronlane]

Mike, do you teach this stuff? Can I come learn because your explanations are great and then you add to them the pictures. Thanks a ton, it helps to understand, when it's easy to just be overwhelmed.

You just helped me confirm that I want to stick with the 105.

 

[Big Mike]

Glad to help.

 

[imagesliveon]

Big Mike is bang on the money with saying the focal difference between 17mm and 24mm is HUGE!

If I get the chance later today I'll take two pictures on a cropped sensor camera and FF. One on the 24-105 and on 17-40mm to show you the focal difference.

For me the 24-105mm is a great walk around lens..

Kind regards