Which lens to get for my XTi?

[MasterOfKtulu109]

I'm gonna buy an XTi in the next few days since the prices are so good right now, and I've narrowed my lens choices down after reading other recommendations.

Tamron 17-50
Tamron 28-75
Canon 50 1.8

A lot of people talk about those 3 as being good walk-around lenses to start with and learn from. I have the money for the 17-50, which is the most expensive, but I don't want to buy an expensive lens if there is something better that is cheaper to start out with. Are the two Tamrons the same (besides focal length, obviously), as far as picture quality goes? I'm not sure which one of those I would rather have; is the 17-50 worth the extra $100 or so?

This is my first DSLR, so I want something that I can learn with but also take good photos. Any other suggestions are welcome, as long as they are in the same price range ($400 or so).

 

[alfa147x]

I think its un-fair to throw the 50 f/1.8 lens to compare it to those other lens's
The 50 f/1.8 is a lens that can not be compared to other lens's its a must have for any budgeted photographer but it is a prime
If I were you I would look at the XTI body and the Tamron 17 - 50 AND later when it is affordable get the 50 f/1.8
but your comparing $400+ lens's to a $75 lens c'mon now...

 

[bondboy]

The 28-75 has great IQ, but 28mm may not be wide enough on a cropped body like the XTi. I would go with the 17-50, and it can be had for not much more than the 28-75.

You can get a 17-50 here for $394 after a Tamron rebate (rebate expires end of the year... which is tomorrow)
http://www.beachcamera.com/sho...aspx?sku=TM1750XRDIEOS

The nifty fifty is still a must have though. Makes you appreciate the sharpness of a prime.

 

[Jawo]

I got the 17-50 as my primary walk around lens and could not be happier with it. Its worth the premium since you have a true wide angle at 17mm and the constant f/2.8 really makes it a killer deal.

 

[ElFenix]

tamron 17-50. i have the 28-75 and the utter lack of wide angle really hampers its use as an everyday sort of lens.

 

[randomlinh]

It's a tough choice... most people will say get a 17/18-50 variant. If you really want to save money, the new IS kit lens is suppose to be pretty damn good for the money. It will at least let you know if that's the range you want.

I personally don't use the wider end walking around, and sold my 18-50 sigma a little while back. I'm looking at getting a zoom walk around again sometime this coming year, and will probably get the 24-70 Sigma.

And the 50 f/1.8 should be in your bag no matter what grab a used copy for $60-70.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: alfa147x
I think its un-fair to throw the 50 f/1.8 lens to compare it to those other lens's
The 50 f/1.8 is a lens that can not be compared to other lens's its a must have for any budgeted photographer but it is a prime
If I were you I would look at the XTI body and the Tamron 17 - 50 AND later when it is affordable get the 50 f/1.8
but your comparing $400+ lens's to a $75 lens c'mon now...

The 50 1.8 is cheap, but a very good lens.

I would recommend the 50 1.4 though for the USM focus.

The Tamron 28-75 is a really good lens if you get a good copy.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

you should get the 50 at some point anyway.... everyone should have that thing. its cheap enough so why not.

the 28-75 is a good lens too, but at the moment i use a 28-105 and i have to say that 28mm on my XTi/400D isnt wide enough alot of the time. i keep finding that its either not wide enough, or doesnt zoom enough! lol but it does still get used alot.... i just have to work around the short commings

 

[Shimmishim]

i will have to agree that the 28 is not wide enough.

I have both the 17-50 and 28-75. I enjoy them both but I find myself using the 17-50 a bit more.

I was taking a group shot with 3 people in it on the 28-75 and found myself leaning back over a couch to get everyone to fit in (yes, i was pretty close).

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: Jawo
I got the 17-50 as my primary walk around lens and could not be happier with it. Its worth the premium since you have a true wide angle at 17mm and the constant f/2.8 really makes it a killer deal.

Same and QTF.

I went with the 17-50 2.8 and 70-200 f4 L lense. I need to pick up a 50 1.4 prime someday though, just to see what all the fuss is about

 

[rudder]

Depending on the lighting situations you may want to consider the Canon 18-55 IS for ~$180. Its a cheap well reviewed lens... not f/2.8 though but for your price range you can also get the 50mm f/1.8 (or even the f/1.4 if you wanted to spend a little more).

User reviews

 

[saikit]

the 50mm f1.8 is definitely a good lens for low-light and portrait shooting.

What about the Sigma 17-70mm?

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: Jawo
I got the 17-50 as my primary walk around lens and could not be happier with it. Its worth the premium since you have a true wide angle at 17mm and the constant f/2.8 really makes it a killer deal.

Same and QTF.

I went with the 17-50 2.8 and 70-200 f4 L lense. I need to pick up a 50 1.4 prime someday though, just to see what all the fuss is about

Its worth it. I use it as my primary when in low-light situations and sometimes when I hand off the 20d to get into the picture, I get weird looks when I respond to the "how do I zoom" questions by pointing at their feet.

The pictures are worth it, but sometimes the space just makes me put that 17-40f4 on. OP, I'd say get the 17-50 now. Primes aren't for everyone, and as your only lens, it might turn you off too much.

 

[punchkin]

The 17-50 I had was greatly lacking in optical quality. For a beginner you cannot do better than (or as well as) the 18-55 IS and 50mm 1.8 for a total of under three hundred dollars. Sharpness of the 18-55 IS equals that of even the Canon 17-55 IS, and bests it in the corners at some settings-- and the 17-55 is superior to the Tamron.

The 50mm f/1.4 (which I have) is lacking in many respects. The focusing is not as reliable as my other fast lenses, it is prone to halation/softness at f/1.4, and the focusing mechanism is prone to breakage.

 

[Shimmishim]

I love my Tamron 17-50 dearly!!! It's very sharp and well... my first lens so it holds a special place for me.

I am partial to the 17-50 so I might not be the best person to ask

I wish I could justify getting the 50 f/1.2L but the price difference between that and the 1.4 is just ridiculous!

 

[pennylane]

Another vote for the 17-50mm. It has its flaws (no USM, kinda loud, occasional trouble focusing), but it's a really good deal.

 

[jmagg]

The 50mm is a blast if it's focusing correctly.
My 1.8 hardly leaves my Nikon D50, although i seem to recall reading about front/back focusing issues at wide apertures on the Canon side with the 50 1.8.

 

[jmagg]

I need to amend my last comment. It seems the Canon 50mm 1.2L is the lens getting the bad press.