lens advice

[stefanie33]

I am shooting with a canon xsi and use a 50mm 1.8 and a 70-200mm f4 L...do only people photography..both these lenses are great, but I need a good sharp lens for indoor photography..don't have enough room to use the 50 or 70-200...any suggestions on a lens that won't completely break the bank?

 

[Joey_Ricard]

so you want to open it up a little - how big is your bank?

I have had this tamron and use it on my crop bodies quite a bit - this or for a little more you can get a Canon 17-40

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF Lens Review
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Lens for Canon AF016C700 B&H

 

[stefanie33]

Bank is not that big...need to keep it under $1000 for sure...thanks for the info...will check these out

 

[stefanie33]

Might be a dumb question, but is there a huge difference between these lenses and my 18-55 kit lens?

 

[analog.universe]

A 17-50, or 17-55 2.8 is what I'd think of at the budget as well... provided 2.8 is fast enough for you. Sigma, Tamron, and Canon all make versions of this lens. The Canon is fantastic and may as well be an L lens, and the Sigma and Tamron are still good values.

The Sigma 30mm 1.4 is sharp in the center, and has nice bokeh, and is plenty fast for indoors. The edges of the frame remain soft throughout the f-stop range however. If you're just shooting people with it that may not really be a problem though.

The ideal lens in this situation is a 35L, which is clearly outside your budget. But if you're not happy with the alternatives it could be worth saving for.

 

[analog.universe]

Might be a dumb question, but is there a huge difference between these lenses and my 18-55 kit lens?

The main difference is the constant 2.8 aperture. The Canon and Sigma versions also have Ultrasonic focusing (not sure about the Tammy), which is faster and quieter than the micromotor in the kit lens. The Canon and Sigma also outperform the kit lens in terms of distortion at the wide end. They're also better controlled against chromatic aberration throughout the range. The sharpness will not be all that different between any of these lenses, except the Tamron and Sigma are a little softer at the edges than either of the Canons.

 

[Joey_Ricard]

Bank is not that big...need to keep it under $1000 for sure...thanks for the info...will check these out

What that = Stephanie meet your new lens lol
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Lens 8806A002 B&H Photo Video


I have had this lens for a few years, probably my most used lens for general photography. Don't get me wrong though, I would not hesitate to use the tamron for the same type of images, I just happen to keep the tamron on one of my crop bodies

 

[analog.universe]

Bank is not that big...need to keep it under $1000 for sure...thanks for the info...will check these out

What that = Stephanie meet your new lens lol
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Lens 8806A002 B&H Photo Video


I have had this lens for a few years, probably my most used lens for general photography. Don't get me wrong though, I would not hesitate to use the tamron for the same type of images, I just happen to keep the tamron on one of my crop bodies

Unless you're going to add lighting to every shot, f/4 really isn't going to cut it indoors I don't think.... even 2.8 is pushing it. ymmv.

 

[Joey_Ricard]

I have never met anyone that doesn't use lighting indoors
She asked for a good sharp lens that wouldn't break her bank
a 2.8 version of anything doesn't mean you don't need lighting

I know you were just saying tho

 

[Jacobwilson]

I'd recommend 24-70 2.8. I found mine for around $900 and it's all I use. My 50mm 1.4 and 70-200 4 definitely get neglected because of this beast. My brother has the 17-40, but being f/4 it doesn't perform as well under low light.
And of course 2.8 isn't the lowest aperture or best for low light conditions, I get a lot of blur in my shots when I'm not über careful, but it does the best job I've seen from a lot of lenses.