Walkabout Lens

S

samems

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,005
Edit My Images
No
I am wanting a nice walkabout lens for a canon crop body.

I also want it to be able to work well indoors.

I very much fancy a Tamron 17-50 (Not sure is VC or non is the best) or going up a price the 15-85 is Canon. What puts me off the 15-85 is the price! And it hasnt got as low an F number as the Tamron.

I did have a 50mm 1.8 and loved the shots from that but it is restricted. I need more flexibility.

So, what do you lot recommend. I really dont want to spend a lot. Even £200 on a 2nd hand Tamron is a lot and double that for the 15-85!!

Any help would be very much appreciated. :thumbs:
 
17-50/2.8 will not work terribly well indors, nor will even darker canon 15-85.

Otherwise both are very good walkaround lenses. Tamron non-vc is reputed to be better than vc version.
 
I thought 2.8 was fine for indoors without a flash?

Anyway, what walkabout would you guys recommend?
 
samems said:
I thought 2.8 was fine for indoors without a flash?
Click to expand...

Depends... In my experience 2.8 is just about always too dark, 2.0 is much better. Even at 1.4 I almost always have to push the ISO to 800 and above. So at 2.0 it will be 1600, and at 2.8 - 3200.

Anyway, what walkabout would you guys recommend?
Click to expand...

My choise is sigma 30/1.4, but I'm a prime lens addict mind you.

If I were to choose from the two you mentioned, I'd go for tamron non-vc for shallow DoF and sharpness. But canon 15-85 is a VERY good lens as well.
 
You can get a very good shallow DOF with the 15-85 just have a look at my Flickr (my flickr name is victory8ball) have a look at the bullet which is about 4'' away from the box and how out of focus is the box. I had a tamron 17-50 f2.8 and it's no where near as good as the canon 15-85 in every respect and the canon is much sharper at every aperture when compared side by side, I know this as I had 2 copy's of the tamron and they both went back and got the 15-85. I do agree with above that f2.8 isn't bright enough for indoor and it's true that u have to bump up the ISO and it isn't very sharp wide open so a prime would be better fro low light as its much sharper at 2.8 and u can step it down to 1.4 if needed.
 
So, the 15-85 is miles better than the Tamron. Indoors it is good? I know light needs to be good or even using a flash.
 
Hi

The balance you are after in utility would be lovely but is not really that possible - and not for that price.

To get a well exposed shot indoors you need to have a camera with a good quality, high ISO and a large aperture size on your lens. Or a flash.

So for example, my walk around lens is a canon 24-70 f2.8L at about £1k.
Indoors (well lit), I'm forced to shoot at ISO 800-1600, f2.8, at about 1/100th second, using natural light.

Also of relevance is what you will be shooting indoors. If its a child who is likely to move then skip the IS and go with a fast lens like a 1.8 or you'll just end up with blurred images on your longer exposure shots - if you can focus on them at all. This means however, foregoing the flexibility of a zoom.

So your options are
1 - The flexibility of a walk around lens like an 18-50 or 18-200 - with IS as long as there are not going to be any children in the shot indoors.

2 - the above lens in non-IS format plus a 50mm f1.8

3 - the first lens in non-IS format and a flash.

I say non-IS to keep it closer to your budget and since IS wont help in the situations specified.

Personally, I find a flash invaluable. Although I enjoy using natural light, you cant depend upon the venue, time of shoot, or the weather to provide it for you.

But your decision should be based on your priorities and shooting environments.
 
Last edited:
I have also read about Tamron being like a hit and miss on the quality of a lens.
 
Deadlock said:
Hi

The balance you are after in utility would be lovely but is not really that possible - and not for that price.

To get a well exposed shot indoors you need to have a camera with a good quality, high ISO and a large aperture size on your lens. Or a flash.

So for example, my walk around lens is a canon 24-70 f2.8L at about £1k.
Indoors (well lit), I'm forced to shoot at ISO 800-1600 at about 1/100th second, using natural light.

Also of relevance is what you will be shooting indoors. If its a child who is likely to move then skip the IS and go with a fast lens like a 1.8 or you'll just end up with blurred images on your longer exposure shots - if you can focus on them at all. This means however, foregoing the flexibility of a zoom.

So your options are
1 - The flexibility of a walk around lens like an 18-50 or 18-200 - with IS as long as there are not going to be any children in the shot indoors.

2 - the above lens in non-IS format plus a 50mm f1.8

3 - the first lens in non-IS format and a flash.

I say non-IS to keep it closer to your budget and since IS wont help in the situations specified.

Personally, I find a flash invaluable. Although I enjoy using natural light, you cant depend upon the venue, time of shoot, or the weather to provide it for you.

But your decision should be based on your priorities and shooting environments.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that.

I really do need a balanced lens but a good walkabout will serve me best for now. Recommendations on a tidy one will be great. Maybe i can get a prime some time in the future.

I am looking to get a 50D soon.
 
samems said:
So, the 15-85 is miles better than the Tamron. Indoors it is good? I know light needs to be good or even using a flash.
Click to expand...

It's very very good indoors too depending on shutter speeds that u use for egsample u will not be able to shoot at 1/2000 and I'm sure in most situations even in sun light u wouldn't use such shutter speeds but I have shot 1/5 of a sec at 85 mm and I get superb shots even at1 /125 in dim indoor light so I wouldn't sweat that, let the IS do its job.....
 
I am extremely happy with my 17-50 tamron 2.8 non VC.

I thought it was pretty sharp wide open on my 500D.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joe_0_1/7296743278/

I also have an indoor shot, with not great light, of a child and it is a nice shot, I will try to post it if you are interested.

I think the Tamron is a good option for your budget.

I also think you should have kept the 1.8 :p

edit:: this is from snapfish so the quality has been obliterated
http://images3a.snapfish.com/232323232fp73472>nu=3386>347>25;>WSNRCG=369564<243333nu0mrj
 
Last edited:
canon 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 is a good walkabout option, with the 4 f-stop IS system it's a handy lens to have, but for indoors, no, even with the IS system, still too slow, especially for anything moving.

The tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC is a !!!! lens, all the reviews have knocked it. I don't know what they did, but if you were to buy the tamron, the 17-50mm non VC is the one to go for, miles better, sharper and cheaper than the 15-85mm

The you have the canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS, this lens gets the top recommendations from the review sites as the ideal partner for the cropped sensor body (EF-S).

Breaking the bank is the canon 24-70mm f2.8 MKI

Yes f2.8 is the minimum required for indoors, but if thats your primarily function of the lens, then the only way to go is primes, like the 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8, 100mm f2 or 135mm f2
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top