450d next step, lens or body

[RaoulIsidro]

I like this Canon EF 28mm f1.8 USM $543.00 is that a full frame lens.

Dose Tamron make a full frame lens, Thanks Raou

Any Canon Lens that is EF is for full frame use, but can also be mounted on cropped sensor bodies.
The EF-S lenses are for the smaller cropped sensors only.
Cropped sensor camera bodies like what you have will take ANY EF and EF-S lenses, but Full Frame camera bodies will only accept EF lenses on their mount.

[Duane Pipe]

Any Canon Lens that is EF is for full frame use, but can also be mounted on cropped sensor bodies.
The EF-S lenses are for the smaller cropped sensors only.
Cropped sensor camera bodies like what you have will take ANY EF and EF-S lenses, but Full Frame camera bodies will only accept EF lenses on their mount.

That's the answer I was looking for Raoul now i can do some serious shopping

[Duane Pipe]

I would like to thank everyone for their advice

[Darvidanoar]

I have the Tamron 17-50mm and can vouch for it being a very nice lens. I too started with the Canon kit 18-55, and the Tamron was a great replacement for it. Well worth the money. (mine cost around $700 a few years ago, but I see they are much much cheaper now).

The focus motor is a little noisey and sometimes gets funny looks from other photographers, but the glass is what counts.

[Duane Pipe]

I have the Tamron 17-50mm and can vouch for it being a very nice lens. I too started with the Canon kit 18-55, and the Tamron was a great replacement for it. Well worth the money. (mine cost around $700 a few years ago, but I see they are much much cheaper now).

The focus motor is a little noisey and sometimes gets funny looks from other photographers, but the glass is what counts.

I can put up with motor noise as long as it is worth it, a few peolpe have sugested that lens.
Thanks Dave

[Gremlin]

the noise doesnt really bother me, I kinda like it, but Im odd like that

[Entrapro]

I must be getting old! I find that I'm valuing things like weight and the convenience of a long zoom range over all the other issues. I bought a Tamron 18-270 f3.5-6.3 and just correct for pin cushion and barrel distortion using the DXO Optics Pro software. I also find that this software does an amazing job on noise reduction so I can crank up the ISO to make up for the slowness of the lens and compensate for the extra noise in post-processing. I also find that taking raw and then generating some mild pseudo-HDR or fusion blending in Photomatix Pro does wonders for the impact of the photos. I submitted 6 photos in a club competition which was judged by a visiting judge and won three merits (the highest award) and three credits (I'm not bragging, btw). I bought the lens on the internet and am more than happy with the results coupled with my aging 400D. I wonder why I anguished for so long over the 24-70 plus 70-200 both f2.8. And yes, I'm sure the latter are superb lenses and I sound like a pleb but on A4 prints where the printer's resolution is the limiting factor or on the screen where the screen is the limiting factor or where you need to reduce the pixel count and the file size to billy-o, what difference does it make? This is called "leading with my chin" so all you pros can feel free to hit me. lol.

[ZedEx]

And therein lies the answer. If you're only doing A4 sized prints, OF COURSE the quality of the lens doesn't really matter. Gosh, I could probably stick a piece of cheese to the front of my camera and still get an ok print at A4 The reasons 'pros' use say a combo like a 24-70 plus 70-200 f2.8 is thus: Build quality, wide apeture, best image quality possible (for a zoom).
I've done 30x40 inch enlargements from a Canon 40D with a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 lens. With my 24-70 and 5D (mk1) I could probably better that a little more as well.
So really, I think it's a bit naive to suggest the 18-270 when the OP is after better quality images than their kit lens. The 18-270 is a nice range, but it will not be a significant upgrade

I must be getting old! I find that I'm valuing things like weight and the convenience of a long zoom range over all the other issues. I bought a Tamron 18-270 f3.5-6.3 and just correct for pin cushion and barrel distortion using the DXO Optics Pro software. I also find that this software does an amazing job on noise reduction so I can crank up the ISO to make up for the slowness of the lens and compensate for the extra noise in post-processing. I also find that taking raw and then generating some mild pseudo-HDR or fusion blending in Photomatix Pro does wonders for the impact of the photos. I submitted 6 photos in a club competition which was judged by a visiting judge and won three merits (the highest award) and three credits (I'm not bragging, btw). I bought the lens on the internet and am more than happy with the results coupled with my aging 400D. I wonder why I anguished for so long over the 24-70 plus 70-200 both f2.8. And yes, I'm sure the latter are superb lenses and I sound like a pleb but on A4 prints where the printer's resolution is the limiting factor or on the screen where the screen is the limiting factor or where you need to reduce the pixel count and the file size to billy-o, what difference does it make? This is called "leading with my chin" so all you pros can feel free to hit me. lol.

[Duane Pipe]

I am going to go with the Tamron 17-50mm for the simple reason that I want my walk around every day pictures to be of better quality

[grauniad]

It seems you've made a decision and I'm too late, but you don't need to use a zoom lens. For less money, you could get several prime lenses that are of similar quality to the Tamron zoom you are considering. I have the very cheap 50mm f/1.8 II and it's great. I'm considering getting the 28mm f/2.8 which is supposedly also very good value for money.
Rodney

[Arg]

It seems you've made a decision and I'm too late, but you don't need to use a zoom lens. For less money, you could get several prime lenses that are of similar quality to the Tamron zoom you are considering. I have the very cheap 50mm f/1.8 II and it's great. I'm considering getting the 28mm f/2.8 which is supposedly also very good value for money.
Rodney

Biggest problem with prime lenses for crop sensor cameras is in the wide angle area. Wides need to be 15mm or 17mm on a crop sensor, where are the primes? Not to mention ultra wide....

[ZedEx]

What do you mean? There are wide primes for Canon. They make a 14mm f2.8L (albeit about 2,500). A 15mm f2.8 at about $850. And a 20mm f2.8 for about $600. No UWA's unfortunately for a crop biody, though (except for zooms)

[Duane Pipe]

Gday Rod, yeah I will stick to the Tamron I dont think I like the idea of the fixed focussing of the prime lenses, unless you can convince me otherwise Thanks Rod

[grauniad]

Primes vs zooms is really a separate discussion. But...Many of the great photographers of the past (and present?) only every used prime lenses, prime lenses are simpler so you get better value (image quality) for the same money, many teachers suggest that using prime lenses makes you a better photographer (forces you to consider your point of view more carefully, stops you being lazy, helps you imagine the shot in advance). I admit I use both zooms and primes, but I love my 50mm f/1.8 II (and 100mm f/2.8 macro). If you don't already have one, I recommend you buy the very cheap 50mm f/1.8 II or a wider angle prime and use it exclusively for a month and then tell us what you think.
Rodney

[stylo]

Instead of starting a new thread, I'm in a similar situation - would like a lens upgrade from my 18-55 EF-S IS kit lens on my 450D.

Is the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF (such a mouthful) still a good upgrade to the kit lens for taking mainly walkaround pics - I note this thread is a 7 months old .. still valid ?

This review (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx
) states the newer model lens (with the VC - vibration control - is NOT as good as the non VC version).

My main question is whether it's in anyway a step down that I'm going from the canon "IS" kit lens to a "non VC" Tamron lens, or is the Tamron that much better than the Canon kit lens that it should be a non-issue ?

In comparing with the canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, review does say the IS on the USM lens is a big advantage:

"The Canon's biggest advantage is the 3-stop image stabilizer that the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens lacks. If your subject is not moving (or you are), this is a really nice feature. The Canon also features fast, silent USM (Ultrasonic Motor) focusing with FTM focusing."

Help ?

[Arg]

stylo, I think you mean the Canon 17-55/2.8 IS, not 18-55. The only reason not to buy this lens is if your budget doesn't stretch to it.

[stylo]

stylo, I think you mean the Canon 17-55/2.8 IS, not 18-55. The only reason not to buy this lens is if your budget doesn't stretch to it.

yes i did, and i've changed the post to reflect that, thanks !

and you are right .. my budget does not quite stretch that far for the 17-55 IS USM. The review says the Tamron is 'ok' compared to the Canon for the price it is.

My concern is the lack of image stability ... and the fact that the review says the Image stability version of the tamron is not quite as good as its predecessor.

[I @ M]

stylo, the Tamron ( non vc version ) has a very good reputation and it is still available new from retailers both on the 'net and off.

It would be my first recommendation for a lens in that focal length range when you want a fast aperture lens on a "budget" and the lack of IS / VC will only be a problem to my way of thinking in low light situations where you end up with to large an aperture opening that destroys the depth of field that you want or when you can't or don't want to push the ISO levels any higher to keep shutter speeds up.

With the very valid rule of keeping shutter speeds at at least as fast as the focal length being used you are looking at a range of 1/20 to 1/60 and they should be pretty achievable in most situations with that lens.

[stylo]

thanks Andrew. I will definitely consider the tamron and NOT in the VC (image stabiliser) version.

[Bennymiata]

If not having IS in the lens isn't a deal breaker, could I suggest the Sigma 24-70 F2.8

I have one thta is used on a Pentax K-x, and it's an excellent lens.
Very sharp and no CA.