canon 85 f1.8 or tamron anything mm f2.8

[jann1033]

don't like my 50mm f1.8( ok hate it in fact) so not sure why i am considering the 85 mm but want a low light lens and wondering if anyone uses/abuses/recommends/hates any of the above. not really totally hooked on a prime, just want tack sharp for cheap as possible
the thing i hate about the 50 is the length is worthless to me...i just never use it either want longer or shorter. was thinking about a wider tamron zoom at first but saw some decent reviews for the canon and mostly i want low light although a zoom would probably be best. the only lens i have i really love is my 70-200 f4 non is so the canon kind of would be redundant but i have nothing to use low light

 

[JimbobJimbo]

I have gotten some pretty good results using the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, and the lens can be found for a decent price (around $400)

Here is an example from inside Spaceship Earth.

Camera Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XSi
Exposure Time 0.04s (1/25)
Aperture f/2.8
ISO 1600
Focal Length 45mm (72mm in 35mm)

 

[fitzperry]

Can't speak to the Canon, but I have the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 in the Nikon mount and have been pretty pleased with it. My copy seems sharp (seems like people are always complaining about quality control issues with the 3rd party lenses, but with the luck you've had w/ Canon, IIRC, what have you got to lose?). I don't hate my 50mm f/1.8, but as you say, the focal length isn't very useful to me. I've hardly used it since I got the Tamron. I just bump the ISO, and the 2.8 is generally enough.

 

[PaulD]

I have both the Tamron 28-75 and 17-50. I love them both. The 28-75 is a bit older and so it focuses more slowly. Also, I think the 17-50 might be a tad bit sharper (although both are really sharp). On the other hand, the 28-75 is better for portraits since it goes longer.

I would advise staying away from the super zooms (i.e. 18-200). They provide a lot of versatility but you compromise on image quality. I picked up an older Tamron 28-200 for cheap but hardly ever use it because it's too soft.

 

[jann1033]

at first i was thinking the 55-250 canon but that is basically what i have then realized it was 4-5.6( or so) anyway so forget that one (even though it would be better for me than my 28-135 since i use the longer end more, it is pretty much my f4 with is). tamron wide zoom if probably more what i am after and i know i've seen some nice shots on here but never remember what lens it is

 

[Code]

Looking at a review of the 85/1.8, looks like it isn't "tack sharp" until above f/2.8. I have the Tamron 17-50mm and it has great sharpness even at f/2.8 on the wider half of the zoom range, slightly softer at 50mm f/2.8, but very good again at f/3.5-4.

I have a 30/1.4 and 50/1.4, and while I don't hate my 50, it definitely doesn't get used as much as the Sigma 30. It's a very useful focal length shooting indoors, and though the corners are soft wide open, it has very good center sharpness even at f/1.4, by f/2 the center is razor sharp and corners acceptable.

 

[handicap18]

Personally, I'd go with a Tamron f/2.8. I'd go with the 17-50mm over the 24-70 because it is wider. I've found I like slightly wider better than slightly longer. Though I did rent a Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 a few months back and I really didn't find I needed much wider.

I almost bought the 17-50mm f/2.8 last week, but instead opted for the Sigma 10-20mm. My next lens purchase will be wide/standard zoom f/2.8.

 

[jann1033]

Personally, I'd go with a Tamron f/2.8. I'd go with the 17-50mm over the 24-70 because it is wider. I've found I like slightly wider better than slightly longer. Though I did rent a Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 a few months back and I really didn't find I needed much wider.

I almost bought the 17-50mm f/2.8 last week, but instead opted for the Sigma 10-20mm. My next lens purchase will be wide/standard zoom f/2.8.

i'd probably go with the 17 since i like my 70-200 and usually am ok lightwise with that since i use a tripod anyway sometimes( should be all the time but lazy) and don't really need between 50 and 70

 

[DizzyV6P]

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for my walkaround. 85 f/1.8 for shooting portraits and indoor sports...the bokeh is really nice for portraits. 70-200 f/4 for outdoor sports.

I hate my 50 f/1.8 as well. It's just a weird length for me. It sits in my bag as a nice weight. I sold my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 because I wanted the wider options that the 17-50 gives me.