Need help with another lens choice!

[cjstarr]

With money being what it is I have to find deals where I can. I would like the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 but the cheapest I can find it is $310 w/$30 shipping.
I have found a Konica Minolta 17-35mm F/2.8-4.0 D AF Lens for under $250.
Would this be worth the price considering the extra $100 I would have to spend for the Tamron?

 

[Daisy14'sDH]

I have the Tamron for Pentax mount, it does what it needs to do but I find it to not really shine! Its sharp and handles abberations well, but it seems to be missing something, its my least used fast zoom for that reason, it lacks contrast I guess. Do your research, I now wish I would of spent the extra money for a better ne like the DA*

 

[cjstarr]

Thanks Daisy14'sDH I'll take your advice,

 

[nbaresejr]

I dont have the lens you are asking about but i do own the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS.

I researched the Tamron but went with the Sigma because reviews and people who own it said it was sharper and faster focusing then the Tamron VC. The Non VC version is supposed to be very very sharp.

You are kind of asking about 2 completely different lenses. The Tamron is going have more zoom and a constant 2.8 aperture. The other lens has less zoom and a variable aperture.

Alot depends on what type of photography you do. The 2.8 will be better for indoor photos.

IMO, the extra $100 will would be well worth it.

 

[havoc315]

I promise if you keep your eyes open, you can get the Tamron for a bit under $300.

The Minolta is slower, and covers less range. Not worth saving $50-$100.

In fact, instead of obsessing on a kit lens replacement, I may just stick with the actual kit lens... Add a Minolta nifty fifty for $70ish and a beercan for $150ish... Which will then very cheaply cover the vast majority of your shooting situations.

It's not as if the kit lens produces -bad- shots.

 

[cjstarr]

nbaresejr I am trying to find a lens for the indoors. This has been a problem for me for the simple reason I want a lens that will get good shots in the dark like a f/1.8 or f/1.4 even and this has had me looking at lens that are UWA 14mm f1.8but in the same instance something that will give me a little variable like a 17-50 f/2.8.
Now my biggest problem is my wallet, I need to keep it as close to $250 as I can and no more then $300 tops. so you can see the problem I have to face.

 

[havoc315]

Create a saved eBay search for the Tamron on eBay. A couple get sold every week for under $300. Won't be much under $300.. But should sneak under the line.

But really... If the budget is that tight, I may just go with the Minolta 50/1.7--- which overall performs better than the Tamron, for a fraction of the price. A nice trade off for giving up the wide zoom.
And keep the Tamron (or Sony 16-50) on your wish list for the future.

 

[cjstarr]

havoc315 I'm not a fan of the 50mm. I had one with my Sony a100 and found myself chasing the shot I was trying to get. This is why I would like to go wider as in a 14mm and no tighter then a 30mm and it might not be wide enought if I go with a prime.

 

[nbaresejr]

nbaresejr I am trying to find a lens for the indoors. This has been a problem for me for the simple reason I want a lens that will get good shots in the dark like a f/1.8 or f/1.4 even and this has had me looking at lens that are UWA 14mm f1.8but in the same instance something that will give me a little variable like a 17-50 f/2.8.
Now my biggest problem is my wallet, I need to keep it as close to $250 as I can and no more then $300 tops. so you can see the problem I have to face.

Believe me i understand. I like most of the people on this board dont make any money off photography and do it just because i really like to. Its an addicting hobby though. Good glass cost alot of money and its hard to justify it when this is not a source of income. Over the last year I have spend around 2k on my current lens setup (Sigma 17-50 2.8, Sigma 10-20 and Canon 70-200L IS f/4). My wife thinks I am crazy but i do see a difference in IQ. I hope i have some good images to show for this cost when i visit WDW is 2 days!!

My advise is to save for what you really want. Making a compromise now may lead you to want something else even more which in the end will cost more money then buying the "right" lens for you in the 1st place. I put that in quotes because only you can make the decision on what is right for you. All of our suggestions will help some.

I also understand what you are saying about indoor. I am not very good indoors. Still learning everyday. The 2.8 helps but you still have to crank up the ISO to get faster shutter speeds. I am finding amazing things can be done when shooting higher ISO and using noise reduction software.

 

[nbaresejr]

havoc315 I'm not a fan of the 50mm. I had one with my Sony a100 and found myself chasing the shot I was trying to get. This is why I would like to go wider as in a 14mm and no tighter then a 30mm and it might not be wide enought if I go with a prime.

Agree on the 50 on a crop sensor. I have the canon 50 1.8 and its not wide enough for indoors. 30 on the crop would be ideal for me.

 

[cjstarr]

do you "nbaresejr" or anyone else have a picture that you have taken with a UWA lens and at what distance from your subject were you that you can post for me to get an idea of what I'm looking at?
I can sit here and think about what a picture looks like from say taken at 12 feet by a 14mm, 20mm, 24mm, 30mm, or a 35mm f/1.4, 1.8, or 2.8 but unless I can see the picture with the distance from the camera the subject was then I'm still in the dark.

 

[nbaresejr]

The 1st image was taken with my Sigma 17-50. The exif says it was taken at 28mm and 2.8. I was standing about 5 feet from her at the time because i wanted the background blown out.

Rachels Linkedin Pic by nickbarese, on Flickr

the 2nd image was taken with my Sigma 10-20. The exif says it was taken at 10mm. I was standing about 2 feet or less from the plant. The UWA is something i am still learning how to use properly

The Clubhouse @ Patriot Hills by nickbarese, on Flickr

I hope those help. If you need anything else just click on my flickr link.

 

[cjstarr]

nbaresejr the Sigma 10-20 from 2 feet away would be more of what I would like to take. It lets me get the all image in the picture and this is something that could not be done with a 30mm or 50mm without having to back up. The last time I tried to take a picture and do this I was using a 50mm prime and had to back up so far that other people started walking in front of me, stopping, and taking pictures forcing me to wait until they moved on. The bad part about this was they could see that I was trying to take a picture with my family in it.

 

[havoc315]

The 50mm can certainly get tight. I'm just slightly confused what you're seeking. Most uwa lenses won't be particularly helpful for low light. The Sigma 10-20 is a rather slow lens.
UWA shots can certainly be fun outdoors, though I probably wouldn't use it for portraits unless its a massive group shots. Get too close to your subject with an uwa lens, you'll get very unflattering distortion on a portrait.

Of the lenses you've mentioned, IF you are looking for a versatile kit replacement tat you can use in semi-low light, the Tamron is worth spending a few more dollars. But it still won't be as good as a 1.4-1.8 prime in true low light.

If you're looking to take ultra wide landscapes outdoors, the UWA is something to look for. But it's not for most indoor shots (indoor uses are usually real estate type shots), and not for most portraits.

 

[bob100]

I'm just slightly confused what you're seeking. Most uwa lenses won't be particularly helpful for low light.
.

I agree (about the confusion!)
You're not going to find an f1.4 wide angle crop lens if that's what you're asking. The Tamron 17-50 is a good lens but shooting indoors at f2.8 is challenging and usually more light is needed so you will need to bring a flash. If you don't want to use a flash indoors than a large aperture prime (30mm for instance) is required.

here's an indoor shot with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc (around $250 used) in a school with better than average lighting
(with Canon Rebel XSi/450D)

 

[havoc315]

I agree (about the confusion!)
You're not going to find an f1.4 wide angle crop lens if that's what you're asking. The Tamron 17-50 is a good lens but shooting indoors at f2.8 is challenging and usually more light is needed so you will need to bring a flash. If you don't want to use a flash indoors than a large aperture prime (30mm for instance) is required.

here's an indoor shot with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc (around $250 used) in a school with better than average lighting
(with Canon Rebel XSi/450D)

With the Tamrom 17-50 on the Sony (where I get the benefit of VC without buying the VC lens), I've been able to take "poor/fair light" photographs without flash, but not true low light. And I've had to boost the ISO, even with the 2.8 aperture.



earlyjan-59.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

This one was indoors without flash, but lots of daylight coming in from the windows:


lillybday-62.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[bob100]

With the Tamrom 17-50 on the Sony (where I get the benefit of VC without buying the VC lens), I've been able to take "poor/fair light" photographs without flash, but not true low light. And I've had to boost the ISO, even with the 2.8 aperture.

This one was indoors without flash, but lots of daylight coming in from the windows:

perhaps, my advice is still for the OP is to learn to use a flash indoors no matter what lens!
however I have been pleased with the Tamron for window light and higher ISO pics

e.g.

indoors with window light, Tamron 17-50 non-vc
with Canon Rebel XSi /450D at f2.8 - ISO 2500 1/250 42mm

 

[cjstarr]

I guess what I'm trying to find is a uwa prime, would this be correct, without it becomming a Fisheye.
Do they make a 15mm or a 20mm prime with f/1.8 or better?

 

[havoc315]

I guess what I'm trying to find is a uwa prime, would this be correct, without it becomming a Fisheye.
Do they make a 15mm or a 20mm prime with f/1.8 or better?

Even non-fisheyes have a distortive effect when used for close-up portraits.
In terms of a 1.8 or faster prime, I don't know of anything wider than the 30-35mm range.

I stole this from someone else -- but it is an example of a 14mm (non fisheye I believe) portrait:


Ultra-wide angle lenses are not for portraits! by chris jd, on Flickr

Now, you can get some very interest portrait effects with an ultra wide angle, but you really need to know what you're doing.

Here is an article about it:
http://improvephotography.com/250/wide-angle-portraits/

And one of the better non-fisheye ultrawide angle lenses for Sony, is the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 -- Here is a discussion about using it for portraits:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/tokina11-16mm/discuss/72157632596552442/

Here is a portrait done with the Tamron 11-18 --- This is not a fisheye lens. Notice the distortion effect, the model looks like a bobblehead doll:


Lady in red by salendron, on Flickr

On this very board, we have debated the proper focal length for portraits, but most would agree it is somewhere between 35mm and 135mm (and there is an argument of obtaining great portraits at 200mm+)

Here is 1 of my portraits taken at 180mm:


bensbirthday-24.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

And a good example of a 50mm portrait:


tournament-24.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

A major downside of using an UWA for portraits --- in addition to distortion, it's harder to get the blurred backgrounds that are generally considered desirable for portraits.

 

[cjstarr]

Not wanting to use it for portraits but for indoor low-light such as shows or rides, ie... Pirates or Alice in Wonderland or other places that require a low-light fast lens. I'm just not sure if a 30mm would be wide enough to get the picture. Take Spaceship Earth for instance, would you be able to capture all of it with a 30mm lens without having to back up so far that others would come between you and the shot?