Would like advice - 11-16 or 17-50

K

Kastro

Well-known member
Hello Dvxusrs',

I'm a bit torn on which lens to get. I understand the obvious distance range differences, but I would like some advice.

I have the kit lens (t2i - 18-50), but it sucks in lowlight, so I'm considering the tamron 17-50 f2.8. When I am shooting, I use my 16mm 2.8 which allows me to get close whilst shooting in lowlight situation (night club). I figure that 1mm difference wouldnt really be that noticable and I get a zoom.

Now my dilemma is:

A. Do I get the 17-50 to replace the kit lens which will give me better low light and based on what I've been reading, a sharper image whilst recording video. As well, gives me a nice walk around lens to do stills on occasion.

B. Get the 11-16 so I can get wider shots in lowlight, but is it practical to walk around with?

Hmm. now that I'm thinking, Does anyone know what the minimum focus distance is on both of those lens? Hopefully I'm asking the question properly.

Would the 17-50 require my subjects to be " 5ft' " away before they are in focus? Because the 16mm I have allows people to damn near kiss the lens and they're in focus. yet with kit lens, they cant get but so close before I have to step back.


I'll be shooting events in addition to doing interviews and such.

Heres to hoping my thoughts spewed out in this thread make sense and I can get some feedback.


Thanks ahead of time.
 
Also, the 17-50 has constant aperture of 2.8, does that mean that I cant bump it up to 5? or 8??

I somewhat answered my own question after researching it a bit longer.

17-50 min focus - ~10"
11-16 min focus - ~11"

Now anyone know about the F/ capabilites? I surely dont want to have 2.8 all the time.. or do i and I just dont know it?
 
Having had both lenses, I can tell you that the Tamron is a lot more practical. You can read about it here.

The aperture of f/2.8 is while it's at its widest. It remains constant through the focal length range but can be made narrower by choice down to f/32.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Jordan.

I just decided that i'm probably going to do the tamron after digging a bit in the tech specs. Thanks for taking the time to answer my babbling post :)

Can I just grab the tamron from amazon? or is there anything I should be aware of? I think i vaugely remember somoene saying "make sure its stamped from japan"... That sound right?


http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-17-50m...Cameras/dp/tech-data/B000EXR0SI/ref=de_a_smtd

^ Is that the one? I see all that gobbldy gook after the focus and etc. and want to make sure that I'm choosing the right one.
 
Last edited:
Haven't heard of it being manufactured anywhere else.

It's not a bad idea to make sure you receive a sharp copy before the return period expires. You could make it a lot more complicated but a simple way to ascertain this is to mount it on a tripod, take photos at various apertures using AF, and then check the images on your computer screen at 100%. I don't believe there have been many QC complaints with this lens.

One other item worth mentioning is that people who shoot mostly video prefer the VC version, which is reportedly softer. Stills shooters seeking sharper images tend to like the non-VC. I have the non-VC. Personally, if I wanted image stabilization in this focal length range, I'd get the Canon, which offers L-quality glass and IS. It's an expensive lens, though.
 
Jordan,

Thanks. I think i may go w/ the non-VC although i'm shooting video. Will just have to make it up with other stabilization outside the cam. Just looked @ the image comparison between the VC and non-VC and I think i'd opt for the cleaner picture at 2.8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top