Advice on Lenses Please!!

DarkBooBoo

Earning My Ears
Joined
Aug 11, 2017
Hello! I need advice on a lens to purchase for an upcoming trip to Disney...

I'm trying to decide whether the 17-50mm f/2.8 is worth it over my kit lens.

A few years ago, I took my 50mm f/1.8 prime to Disney (at home, this lens is my most used, mounted to my camera 80% of the time) and the focal length was very limiting. So I switched to my kit lens (18-55mm f/3.5-5.6), which was much easier to use in tight spaces (while standing in line for example!).

Will f/2.8 make a significant difference? Is it worth the money?

A little more background:
* I have a Canon T3i (APS-C sensor)
* I don't like the idea of lugging multiple lenses around the parks, or changing lenses in the parks, so I need a zoom lens for versatility.
* I mainly want to take portraits of my kids, so I am also considering the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, but a) it's much pricier and b) will I miss the longer focal length for other shots?

Thanks in advance!
 
Yes it's worth it, especially if you get the Canon version of that lens.
 
I can't speak to this particular lens (17-50mm f/2.8), but having an additional two full stops at longer focal lengths over your current set up should make a noticeable difference. You'll have more versatility (although you won't notice it as much on shorter focal lengths since you'll gain less than a full stop there).

The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is a great lens, but at about double the price you'll only get another 1 1/3 stop improvement over the f/2.8 while losing the longer focal lengths. Given what you want to do, that may not be worth it.
 
Hello! I need advice on a lens to purchase for an upcoming trip to Disney...

I'm trying to decide whether the 17-50mm f/2.8 is worth it over my kit lens.

A few years ago, I took my 50mm f/1.8 prime to Disney (at home, this lens is my most used, mounted to my camera 80% of the time) and the focal length was very limiting. So I switched to my kit lens (18-55mm f/3.5-5.6), which was much easier to use in tight spaces (while standing in line for example!).

Will f/2.8 make a significant difference? Is it worth the money?

A little more background:
* I have a Canon T3i (APS-C sensor)
* I don't like the idea of lugging multiple lenses around the parks, or changing lenses in the parks, so I need a zoom lens for versatility.
* I mainly want to take portraits of my kids, so I am also considering the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, but a) it's much pricier and b) will I miss the longer focal length for other shots?

Thanks in advance!

Canon, Tamron, Sigma?
I have the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-is - it's nice and sharp and a good 'walk around' lens for Disney and events. The 50mm 1.8 STM is better for portraits
but I admit since I went mirrorless I rarely use it
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless
 


Thanks all!

ShadeDK - that's exactly what I needed to confirm, thank you!!

bob100 - sorry, I meant to mention that I was considering the Sigma.

mom2rtk - I have heartache over the price of the Canon vs. the Sigma... Most of the reviews I've read claim the Canon is "marginally" better, but I'm just not sure how that compares to the price. Is marginally better worth ~$500 more? I realize value can be subjective... for me, purchasing the Sigma would allow me to purchase another lens too.
 
Thanks all!

ShadeDK - that's exactly what I needed to confirm, thank you!!

bob100 - sorry, I meant to mention that I was considering the Sigma.

mom2rtk - I have heartache over the price of the Canon vs. the Sigma... Most of the reviews I've read claim the Canon is "marginally" better, but I'm just not sure how that compares to the price. Is marginally better worth ~$500 more? I realize value can be subjective... for me, purchasing the Sigma would allow me to purchase another lens too.

It's a stellar lens, but I do understand the sticker shock. I would probably look for a used copy of the lens to help mitigate that. It's generally regarded as "L" quality glass without the distinction.

Here's what I found out when I was looking for one of these. Of the 3 brands, Canon was the best, but Tamron is generally seen as the runner up. That non image stabilized version is very sharp. It has a fairly loud focus motor though (unless things have changed since I did my evaluation). Unfortunately the VC version loses some of that sharpness. Sigma was not seen as the leader in this group, but maybe they have a newer version since I evaluated a number of years ago? I haven't kept up.

I now shoot full frame, and honestly, none of my new lenses are as good as that Canon 17-55. It's the sharpest lens I have owned. It almost kept me from going full frame.
 
I second the use of the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. I have had one for years and it's my go to lens.It's sharp and reliable. It's only downside is AF is loud, and sluggish when compared to a Canon USM lens.

Basically if you go with the Canon version you're getting slightly better optics, and much better AF.
 


Well that is quite compelling, mom2rtk! Thank you for your insight and advice, I will look into a used lens.

Any advice on reputable online sellers of used lenses? I only know of Adorama. Is KEH any good?

SkaGoat - Did you have the VC version or the older non-VC version? Was the AF still loud?

I originally dismissed the Tamrons for a few reasons:
* I once played with the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 and I found the VC on it weird and distracting; and I'm not certain I want a lens without image stabilization..
* Reports of autofocus problems - slow/lots of hunting and issues with front/back focus (both versions of the lens)
* Noisy (VC version), which makes it rather useless for video (I don't shoot video with my DSLR much, but it's always nice to have the option)
 
Keh is VERY reputable. I recommend it to my photography students. They grade their merchandise very conservatively... If they rate it "like new" -- it probably looks brand new. If they rate it "excellent".. it will pass as like new. Even if they rate it "bargain" -- it's completely usable glass with imperfections that won't even noticeably affect images.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KVH
Well that is quite compelling, mom2rtk! Thank you for your insight and advice, I will look into a used lens.

Any advice on reputable online sellers of used lenses? I only know of Adorama. Is KEH any good?

SkaGoat - Did you have the VC version or the older non-VC version? Was the AF still loud?

I originally dismissed the Tamrons for a few reasons:
* I once played with the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 and I found the VC on it weird and distracting; and I'm not certain I want a lens without image stabilization..
* Reports of autofocus problems - slow/lots of hunting and issues with front/back focus (both versions of the lens)
* Noisy (VC version), which makes it rather useless for video (I don't shoot video with my DSLR much, but it's always nice to have the option)
I know when I was going through this decision making process, someone posted a link to a Youtube video where I could hear the focus motor. That ruled the Tamron out for me. Plus, I have unsteady hands and prefer lenses with image stabilization.

Sigma has made some stellar lenses, but they have also made some stinkers with front and back focus issues. That was a consideration for me. I ended up spending more and going with the Canon since this was to be my everyday lens and expected to get heavy usage. It did. I used it for about 95% of my shots before going full frame.

Another possibility is to rent one of the lenses you are considering to see what you think. That gets kind of pricey though when you have to pay for shipping. I'm fortunate that we have a place in town we can pick up rentals so no shipping cost.

I have bought a number of used lenses on Ebay. That would sort of be the "Wild Wild West" of used lens selling places, but I have honestly had very good luck. You can get some really nice deals. But it is very much "caveat emptor". I've bought lenses there then sold them there too for more than I paid. I have also sold lenses on Craigslist (to avoid the Ebay fees). I haven't bought any that way, but if you're good at evaluating lenses, you can try them out on the spot in person when you meet.

I actually own that Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC now for my full frame camera. I'm curious what about the VC you found distracting?
 
Thank you havoc315, that's great to know! I like that they offer a 180-day warranty too.

mom2rtk - When looking through the viewfinder, the image sort of jumped around, or shook, while it was focusing. I've read this is normal, and the salesman at the camera shop said that just about all Tamrons with VC do it.

I'm not a professional photographer by any means, so I initially thought, why spend so much money for the Canon? But you're right, if it is a lens that could easily become my most used, it's worth it.

Veering off topic here a bit - what convinced you to go full frame? I'm planning on keeping this camera body for a few more years, then passing it on to my son. I've been toying with the idea of going full frame next time, so I'm curious what your deciding factors were.
 
Thank you havoc315, that's great to know! I like that they offer a 180-day warranty too.

mom2rtk - When looking through the viewfinder, the image sort of jumped around, or shook, while it was focusing. I've read this is normal, and the salesman at the camera shop said that just about all Tamrons with VC do it.

I'm not a professional photographer by any means, so I initially thought, why spend so much money for the Canon? But you're right, if it is a lens that could easily become my most used, it's worth it.

Veering off topic here a bit - what convinced you to go full frame? I'm planning on keeping this camera body for a few more years, then passing it on to my son. I've been toying with the idea of going full frame next time, so I'm curious what your deciding factors were.
OK, yes that's how Tamron's system works. I've had a number of Tamron lenses through the years so I guess I'm just used to it.

I totally get the hesitation on the cost. But I figured if I didn't get the gold standard of these lenses, I would be wanting the better model a year later. And the most expensive lens is the one you have to buy twice. With that being my workhorse lens, I didn't want to be wondering later if I should have tried the Canon. And honestly, once I started shooting with it, I never looked back. Autofocus is quiet and fast. And it's a really sharp lens. Can you be happy with one of the others? Probably. I guess I won't know if I ever could be since I never tried them. Most importantly, it was a substantial improvement over my kit lens.

4 years later I was still hoping for better performance in low light. I thought the (then new) Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 would be the holy grail of low light photography and finally added it to my kit. I don't know how these are doing now, but early copies of that Sigma lens were notorious for front and back focus issues. My copy was really bad. As in, missed focus about 1/3 of the time. After that I decided if I really wanted to step up my low light game, I needed to give full frame a try. So the Sigma lens went back and I ordered the 6D instead. I haven't regretted that either. I do a lot of landscape photography and full frame is the way to go with that.

I kept the T2i and that Canon lens. My daughter uses it mostly now though.

If you're considering full frame, just know what you have in mind for lenses when you make the switch. If you really want to make the switch, investing in the more expensive EF-S Canon lens might be the wrong move.
 
Full frame is really a different league... but in ways that are most often only noticeable to the enthusiast and professional photographer.
The most obvious factor, you get better low light performance. For better or worse (depending on your perspective), you end up getting narrower depth of field.
You get high resolution -- this is kinda debatable. After all, you get plenty of 24mp full frame cameras, and 24mp aps-c cameras. So in terms or print size, they are giving you the same resolution. But I find in experience, and data I've seen, you end up with sharper images on full frame.
Now, apart from the sensor size -- even the cheapest full frame cameras tend to have specs closer to the best aps-c cameras. Very large viewfinders, some degree of weather sealing, etc. Finally, full frame allows for more super wide angle shooting. There are now 11 and 12mm full frame lenses. At aps-c, with widest lenses are about 10mm, which gives an effective focal length of 15-16mm. So if you want to shoot even wider than 15mm, you need to go full frame.

The 2 big downsides of full frame:
- size -- Full frame necessitates larger cameras and lenses than you can use for aps-c.
- Price -- While the cheapest full frame may match expensive aps-c cameras... once you factor in lenses, full frame starts costing much more. There are good $200-$400 aps-c lenses... where any full frame lens under $500 is a major bargain.
So you end up paying a lot more.. and carrying a lot more weight -- for differences that aren't necessarily going to be very perceptible to people looking at the photos. But the differences will be perceptible to you.
 
from experience any of the 17-50mmish 2.8 lenses should be fine, a lot of the modern lenses are pretty good, if your very picky about image quality, then a prime is the best way to go. sometimes i like to think about if i stripped the metadata out and had no idea what image was shot with what, then I'm sure 9/10 times images will be more acceptable :) i had the tamron 55-200mm (i think thats what it was) and found that a excellent cheap little lens, great for holiday and travelling :) HTH
 
mom2rtk, you are awesome!!!! Thanks so much for the tip! In re: to your previous post. I was really excited about the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 and considered it first, but the reviews on Amazon scared me off. As you said, many reports of focus issues.

Sorry for my hiatus. Went on vacation, got back, and now I'm scrambling to catch up with life!

havoc315, thank you for that analysis! The first two you mentioned, low light performance and narrow depth of field are two of my main motivators for going full frame. However, cost and weight are big cons in my book too, and fuel my hesitation. I own the Canon EF-S 10-18mm, and I've haven't (not yet anyway) had a need to shoot wider.

jamez2014, I agree, a 35mm f/1.4 prime has been on my wishlist for a while. Not just because it's a prime lens, but also because I like to shoot wide open. I just think, for Disney, a prime lens would be too limiting.
 
Hello! I need advice on a lens to purchase for an upcoming trip to Disney...

I'm trying to decide whether the 17-50mm f/2.8 is worth it over my kit lens.

A few years ago, I took my 50mm f/1.8 prime to Disney (at home, this lens is my most used, mounted to my camera 80% of the time) and the focal length was very limiting. So I switched to my kit lens (18-55mm f/3.5-5.6), which was much easier to use in tight spaces (while standing in line for example!).

Will f/2.8 make a significant difference? Is it worth the money?

A little more background:
* I have a Canon T3i (APS-C sensor)
* I don't like the idea of lugging multiple lenses around the parks, or changing lenses in the parks, so I need a zoom lens for versatility.
* I mainly want to take portraits of my kids, so I am also considering the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, but a) it's much pricier and b) will I miss the longer focal length for other shots?

Thanks in advance!

You can opt for EF 70-200mm f/4L is USM as it gives equivalent focal length range of 112-320mm
 
I love love love LOVED my Canon 17-55 f2.8. Yeah it was expensive but I got great shots out of it and it was always my walk around lens. A few years back I went from my T5i to a 6D and switched to 24-70 F2.8 which also takes great shots but isn't quite as versatile (it's heavier, doesn't have IS, etc). But yeah, the 17-55 is great and that along with the 10-22 wide angle lens was perfect for my Disney trips. Used the 10-22 for fireworks videoing.
 
Canon 17-55 2.8 is what lives on my 7D. I've had it for years and find it to be a very good walk around WDW lens. I let my camera dangle from a BlackRapid strap and find that the lens will creep out while it is hanging from the strap (with lens pointed down). Not a deal breaker, but something you learn to live with. If I had to buy one again, I'd probably still go with this lens.
 
Canon 17-55 2.8 is what lives on my 7D. I've had it for years and find it to be a very good walk around WDW lens. I let my camera dangle from a BlackRapid strap and find that the lens will creep out while it is hanging from the strap (with lens pointed down). Not a deal breaker, but something you learn to live with. If I had to buy one again, I'd probably still go with this lens.
I always had some lens creep with mine too. But didn't care.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!





Latest posts

Top