Need help with another lens choice!

[mom2rtk]

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?

Alice is a pretty dark ride. No way is a 2.8 lens going to cut it in there. Pirates you could probably get a few of the brighter shots if you crank the ISO up.

If you really want to shoot dark rides, you're need at least a 1.4 lens and you need a camera that does well at higher ISOs.

I'm comfortable going up to 3200 on my Canon T2i, but even then it's hard to get by on some rides.

Would I rather have something wider than 30mm? Yep. Would I give up some speed on dark rides to get there? Nope.

 

[havoc315]

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?

Getting all of Spaceship Earth into a shot would indeed be a good use for an UWA lens. It's just not a lens you would leave on your camera or use very often.

For the dark rides, the "best" lens for a crop body, may be the Sigma 30mm 1.4. I don't know of any fast primes that really go a lot wider. And that should be wide enough for shots on the ride. (and currently on sale for under $300!)

While I understand all the imperfections of the 50mm, in terms of cost-benefit analysis, I love the 50mm as it is a fraction of the price of 30mm primes.

Anyway... so go the issues of building a lens collection. There are lots of situations that are best handled by a very specific lens, but such a lens may not be used especially often.
So it's really balancing the price of the lens, with how often you would really use it, and to what degree the needs overlap other lenses in your collection.

I don't own an UWA lens --- My widest is 17mm on the Tamron 17-50. A true UWA is on my "wish list" --- But personally, for me, for the way I shoot, it's been my lowest priority.

My lenses, from most used to least used are probably:
Tamron 17-50 -- my kit replacement
Minolta 50mm 2.8 macro (I just love the sharpness and macro ability of the lens)
Tamron 70-300 usd (standby for outdoor telephoto)
Minolta 50mm 1.7 -- indoor low light, occasional outdoor portraits
Minolta 35-105 -- Has a horrible minimum focusing distance making it useless indoors, but it's a phenomenal outdoor portrait lens. And it's a nice outdoor focal length range.
Minolta 70-210 f4 beercan -- Was my telephoto until I got the Tamron, still useful if I need the extra f-stop, and also produces some great telephoto portraits, but it has become my least used lens.
Sony 18-70 -- Sits on a shelf.

My "wish list" would be a 30-35 1.4, and UWA (maybe the Tokina 11-16 or Tamron 11-18), and maybe the Rokinon 8mm fisheye.

 

[havoc315]

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?

Just found out that Sigma makes a 20mm 1.8 -- So that's probably the widest fastest prime you will find. It's a little pricey.

Minolta made a 28mm f2 -- so pretty wide and fast. But it's very expensive, even used.

 

[ukstitch]

Of the original 2 lenses you mentioned, I'd go for the tamron.

The Minolta is an UWA for full frame cameras, where as the tamron is an "all purpose" lens specifically for crop sensor cameras. That's why you get the larger range and constant aperture all in a smaller lens, so unless you have a a850, a900 or a99 I wouldn't even consider the minolta personally.

If you want a fast UWA then try the tokina 11-16 f2.8 - sharp, reasonably fast and constant aperture which is nice and wide.

For shots on dark rides though, I'm generally happy with a 50mm lens (35mm on a standard crop sensor). Ive pulled off some nice pictures that I'm happy with using a 35/500 f.8 - f1.4 is better if you can afford it.

 

[cjstarr]

Should I buy this lens for $200,
Sigma 18-50mm F2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM for Sony.
It is $140 cheaper then the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.

 

[mom2rtk]

Should I buy this lens for $200,
Sigma 18-50mm F2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM for Sony.
It is $140 cheaper then the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.

No, I wouldn't do it. It is worth it to wait if you have to until you can afford one with the constant 2.8.

I know you want the most lens you can get for the money. But if you don't choose the right one now, you'll be back here in a few months wanting advice on what to replace this one with. The most expensive lens is one you have to buy twice.

This lens is possibly going to be on your camera 90% of the time (at least my 17-55 2.8 lens is). It's worth investing a few more dollars to get it right. Even if it means you have to wait to get it.

 

[havoc315]

Should I buy this lens for $200,
Sigma 18-50mm F2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM for Sony.
It is $140 cheaper then the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.

Depends on you're priority. I don't know if it will perform any better than the Sony 18-55 kit lens. It's only a hair faster. So if you're just looking for a kit lens, it may be a reasonable equivalent to the Sony kit lens.

The Tamron is still faster-- there is a big difference between 2.8 and 4.5 at the long end. And while not a big difference, the Tamron is a bit wider-- so you're comparing 25.5mm effective width versus 27mm.

 

[cjstarr]

No, I wouldn't do it. It is worth it to wait if you have to until you can afford one with the constant 2.8.

I know you want the most lens you can get for the money. But if you don't choose the right one now, you'll be back here in a few months wanting advice on what to replace this one with. The most expensive lens is one you have to buy twice.

This lens is possibly going to be on your camera 90% of the time (at least my 17-55 2.8 lens is). It's worth investing a few more dollars to get it right. Even if it means you have to wait to get it.

Thanks mom2rtk I'll keep looking.

So the TAMRON SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] Lens Model A16 for $337.99 would be a better choice.

 

[mom2rtk]

Thanks mom2rtk I'll keep looking.

So the TAMRON SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] Lens Model A16 for $337.99 would be a better choice.

Someone who has used this lens in a Sony version would have to answer your question.

I know that I toiled in a big way about what to replace my Canon kit lens with. In general when I was looking at the Canon options, the Tamron 2.8 lens was said to be sharper than the Sigma, but that once Tamron released the image stabilized version, it lost some of its sharpness. Since you have a Sony, you have in-body stabilization and won't have to worry about that. So unless things have changed since I researched mine a while back, the Tamron should be a good choice.

I do know that a fair number of posters here in this forum have gushed about that lens through the years.

 

[havoc315]

BTW... on ebay, there was a Tamron 17-50 Sony that went "buy it now" for $249 the other day...
In the last week, 6 Tamron 17-50s for Sony have sold for between $249 and $299, with 3 being sold for under $260.
You just need to wait for an actual "used" copy to pop up, and be ready to jump on it.
I know when I bought mine, I had to wait a couple weeks of going through bidding and best offers, before finding a good copy at a reasonable price. But persistence pays off.

It seems that nowadays, if someone actually puts up a used copy for bidding format, the bids top off around $260ish.

 

[cjstarr]

havoc315 I must be doing something wrong. I have not seen it cheaper then $299.99 and I look all the tme. If you see it around $250 shoot me a email so I can find it.

 

[havoc315]

havoc315 I must be doing something wrong. I have not seen it cheaper then $299.99 and I look all the tme. If you see it around $250 shoot me a email so I can find it.

Most recent "cheap" listings:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tamron-SP-A...47460842?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item19daf1c7ea

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tamron-SP-A...79756815?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item3f2392b50f

 

[mom2rtk]

As Havoc suggested, you can set up a "saved search" on ebay and tell it to email you new listings every day within those parameters. I get emails every morning for a number of items I've been watching for.

 

[cjstarr]

Thanks, I did a save search with a email for the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Now to see what comes up.

 

[nbaresejr]

I am in Disney right now about to start day 2. It's my first trip with the UWA and its really handy. By far the most use since I have owned it. That lens shared time with my 17-50.

 

[cjstarr]

I am in Disney right now about to start day 2. It's my first trip with the UWA and its really handy. By far the most use since I have owned it. That lens shared time with my 17-50.

nbaresejr I can't wait to see some of the pictures you take with it. Do you think you can take some comparison shots or have time to take one from the Train platform looking down Main St. USA. I hope you can post some before you leave.

 

[Shutterbug]

I have the Tarmon 17-50 2.8 with the Canon mount. Its whats on my camera 90% of time. Its very sharp.

 

[nbaresejr]

nbaresejr I can't wait to see some of the pictures you take with it. Do you think you can take some comparison shots or have time to take one from the Train platform looking down Main St. USA. I hope you can post some before you leave.

I should be able to post a few comparison shots from Main Street. I will be home on Sunday. Try to get something up that afternoon for you. I am bringing the tripod to the park tonight.

 

[havoc315]

Some day I'll get a UWA lens -- I absolutely love some UWA shots. But IMO, UWA shots can be the hardest when it comes to composition. In a skilled hand, they can be amazing. But I've seen lots of horrible UWA shots, where the frame is largely filled with extraneous material and the interesting stuff becomes miniature.
I really look forward to your use of it nbaresejr.... If there is 1 location that really opens up the use of a UWA, it's Disney World.

 

[nbaresejr]

I am definitely no expert in any area but I'm giving it my best shot. I agree with what was said about the UWA. It's very hard to get the composition right as I'm finding out.