Another lens question

[Tequilamamacita]

I have a rebel XTi. I want to buy a new lens for my cruise this July. I would like to capture mostly my kids with the characters up close. I find the lens I have does well if Im REALLy close to the kids but I know this is going to be a trip for them so I really want to be able to record them and their reactions to the trip, which they dont know about yet. I am up for any suggestions. I am even considering lens rental.com to try out something first.

 

[mom2rtk]

Do you just have the 18-55 kit lens so far?

What would your budget be?

 

[Tequilamamacita]

Yes, I would probably buy tamron or sigma andI would like to keep it under 500 if I could

 

[mom2rtk]

Do you want a better lens with the range you already have, or do you want something with more reach?

I believe the Tamron 18-55 f/2.8 gets good reviews for sharpness. (There is also a version with image stabilization, but my research showed that many thought it gave up some of its sharpness when the stabilization was added) With the constant 2.8, you would do much better in low light and without flash.

If you want more reach, you can consider one of the all-in-ones (The Tamron 18-270 is well reviewed). That gives you more reach, but you don't get the low light performance you get with the 2.8.

 

[Iwant2BAprincess]

My sugestion is to look at the canon 18-135. I love the fact it is versitle and light weight compared to my 70-300.

 

[Tequilamamacita]

what do you mean by more reach?

 

[mom2rtk]

what do you mean by more reach?

I mean more zoom capability past the 55 length on your kit lens.

 

[Tequilamamacita]

So with the 18-270 i will have better sharpness at a longer distance but I compromise low light?

 

[mom2rtk]

So with the 18-270 i will have better sharpness at a longer distance but I compromise low light?

Actually for sharpness, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is probably the best choice in your price range. (Sorry I mentioned 18-55 before. I had the range wrong, but it's the lens I was thinking of).

For convenience, the 18-270 is a good choice. Probably not as sharp as the Tamron 17-50, but still very good. But yes, you give up the low light capabilities. This is because it is a variable aperture lens, with its widest available aperture being 3.5 at the widest length and 6.3 at its longest length.

There generally is never a perfect choice. There are trade-offs involved with all lenses. You have to balance sharpness, range and cost with all lenses.

 

[wenrob]

The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 will give you a little more reach but you lose a lit bit on the wide end. I've personally never had an issue with it. It's a sharp lens and gives you more light to work with. It's my favorite lens (or was.) I guess some have got some not as sharp but I've never had an issue. I previously owned the 17-50 and loved it too. I used it and the Sigma 30 for a trip to Disneyland and never felt like I needed more zoom for Character pics. I'm in the habit of zooming with my feet though.

 

[Jade+3]

I have the Tamron 17-50, which I love, but I wish I had brought the 28-75. I would prefer the extra zoom to get in closer to the kids.

 

[Tequilamamacita]

I bought Sigma 70-300 two days ago!! I cant wait to try it on the cruise!

 

[alloyd1170]

I have the Tamron 18-270 and it is my walkaround lens. I really enjoy have the range of the wide end, plus the reach all in one lens. Until I step up to an "L" lens, it's my favorite. I used it extensively on a photo trip to the Galapagos (more so than my 100-400 since the animals were so close).