Zoom vs. Primes (and suggestions)

[jrod81]

So coming from the Letus DOF world I had a 28mm for wides, 50mm for just about everything, and then a 135 that I hardly ever touched. I felt those three had me covered. Now with the sensor and the 1.6 math needed on lenses for the 7D I am at a loss on what to buy.
So, first off, should I go with primes or zoom?
If primes, what "mm" should I be looking at to take the place of those above mentioned lenses. I saw a Sigma 30mm 1.4 that seems like a good choice for the 50mm substitute. What else should I be looking at?
Then what about zooms? I saw a 17-55mm Tamron with a 2.8 that seems good... could that just take the place of all my primes or will that just be too slow at 2.8???
thanks guys
jared

[ydgmdlu]

A 17mm or 18mm will be a wide. An 85mm will be a telephoto.

A zoom is nice to have for convenience, but primes are the choice for best image quality. If you can afford it, buy both. Otherwise, you'll have to think about what's most important for you.

BTW, a set of new (or new-ish) primes will cost much more total than that Tamron, which can be found used for about the same price as the Sigma 30mm F1.4.

[jrod81]

I saw the new Tamron 17-50mm, but can't find a release date. It is a constant 2.8. Will that be fast enough? My thoughts right now are to get that one for my wides (and in a clutch situation be able to zoom with it) but also buy the Sigma 30mm to use as much as possible for my substitute 50mm. Then i will just have to toss out the telephoto for now I guess...

[ydgmdlu]

In the other thread, I just posted that the lens is available right now.

[ydgmdlu]

Yeah, on the wide end, I don't think that you'll find anything faster than F2.8. I certainly can't (easily) find a wide prime that fast.

[jrod81]

so will that zoom cover me where i shouldn't need the sigma 30mm or is 2.8 going to just kill me? i guess i should buy it first and see how it goes before buying the sigma instead of in the reverse order. could you throw up a link with the US dollar price... the other site is euros.
thanks
jared

[ydgmdlu]

Amazon seems to have the best price: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002LVUIXU/ref=asc_df_B002LVUIXU926613?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&tag=googlecom09c9-20&linkCode=asn&creative=380341&creativeASIN=B002LVUIXU

F2.8 isn't going to kill you. It's great in the vast majority of situations. But I understand your concerns, considering your background with the Letus (which I also used to have). DSLRs need WAY less light.

[jrod81]

amazon, duh, sorry and thanks,
this is it right:
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-17-50mm-Vibration-Compensation-Digital/dp/B002LVUIXA/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1254638869&sr=8-3

[ydgmdlu]

Yes. However, if you can live without the image stabilization (and I think that many people can), then you can get the older version for almost $300 less: http://cgi.ebay.com/Tamron-17-50mm-f%2f2.8-XR-Di-II-LD-%5BIF%5DSP-AF-for-Canon_W0QQitemZ270448608452QQcmdZViewItem

So you'll have to ask yourself if the image stabilization is worth an extra $300 to you. This lens is pretty common in camera stores. Consider trying before buying.

[jrod81]

can we talk just a few moments about the image stabilzation... i mean, can someone justify its $300 necessity? someone on this thread or on a previous one i was reading was saying that image stab. is a "life saver" for shooting video... am i going to shoot myself not having it...

[jrod81]

so is the Sigma 30mm the smartest prime to buy?
I am quite set on getting the Tamron zoom and then saving up until I can get the Sigma, unless someone tells me the 30mm is not taking the place of a 50mm....

[jaydigges]

I think the zoom vs prime question is a good one. a bit obvious perhaps but the zoom is much more versatile. So any documentary/news work its the obvious choice. In fact any situation where you need to set up the shot quickly.

However, Im actually more excited about the idea of using primes in film-making. Right now its only a theory in my head, but I CANT WAIT to shoot a dialog scene with a 35mm, 50mm, and an 85mm and see how it cuts together. Does anyone else see the potential here?

btw. Im going to buy a 50mm and rent the other two primes when I need to.

[ydgmdlu]

can we talk just a few moments about the image stabilzation... i mean, can someone justify its $300 necessity? someone on this thread or on a previous one i was reading was saying that image stab. is a "life saver" for shooting video... am i going to shoot myself not having it...
Go to a camera store. Try a lens with IS, and try one without IS. Then decide if the difference is worthwhile to you. I might tell you that IS isn't very important for this lens (I think that several users here have this view), while someone else will tell you that it's very important. Whom would you believe?

FWIW, what I see the most is people saying that IS is no big deal for lenses up to 50mm, but it's more important when hand-holding the camera with lenses longer than 50mm. That's not to say it is or isn't worth an extra $300 for the Tamron; it's just an observation of mine.

[ydgmdlu]

Hey Jared, in case you didn't see this in the other thread, here's what an experienced person has to say about the matter (I've added some emphasis):


Also - If you have steady hands, IS is only important past 50-60mm. Anything wider and it's fine handheld. I have the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and wouldn't even consider spending the extra $300 for the IS version. Another reason not to use IS unless necessary is that you ruin the camera mic's audio, since the IS motor is next to the mic. LOUD.

On long lenses, like a 135/200mm IS is a lifesaver and can take a lens from being unusable to looking like it was shot with a shoulder rig.