If you had $1500 to spend on good glass

[srwatters]

If I had $1500 to spend on glass, I would have to keep saving

The lens I really want is $3255 from B&H

Hasselblad Normal 100mm f/2.2 HC Auto Focus Lens 3023100 B&H

Dang Hasselblad!

[spluloacle]

Originally Posted by David Whatley

OK, so whats the budget now? Lets see what we can come up with that serves the best on the "new" budget.
Like I have posted many times, I have a Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 that is really sharp and does a good job. Inside with the kids, it will be fast enough and wide enough. I think you can get one for around 350.00

$400 is my new budget... *sniffle*

[zerind]

If $400 is your new budget, wait and save up for what you REALLY want. If you need something in the meantime, you can always rent glass which is what I suggest anyone considering an expensive lens purchase do before commiting to the purchase anyway.

Just my .02

[brake79]

I just want to chime in with others.

If you can't afford the "good stuff", please save and keep an eye out for good used deals. In the meantime learn to master what you have, and get a clearer picture of your needs.

Good lenses hold 90%+ of their original value. So lenses are a good investment if you have to sell later... if you invest in the high quality ones.

To answer your IS question, this is largely personal preference, much like feel and weight of lenses. Trust me, if lugging around a heavy lens for a few hours on a trip gets annoying, guess what, that lens might sit at home more often than makes the purchase worthwhile. If you find handshake blur to be frustrating and your leading cause of not getting keepers, the camera will also stay in the bag. IS will save you a couple of stops, but so would a flashgun or a faster lens. This is all personal preference based on your needs and your skill.

You can get either walk around lens for $850-950 used if you are patient and keep looking on this and FM, or in local stores that sell used equipment. Trust me once you work with a tack-sharp lens you will never know how you lived without it. No lens is the "perfect" lens, all have pluses and limitations which is why we all build kits, over a long period of time. :)

Good luck, and whatever you choose just enjoy it!!

[rfortson]

Originally Posted by brad

Well that's for certain, unless it was the Canon L glass that has a similar range.. but I doubt it.. and I wouldn't buy that lens anyway.. too slow aperture wise. One of the first lenses I owned was a Tamron that (I think) was 28-300 ... it was decent as a starter lens, but useless at much of anything that wasn't f/8

Yeah, but comparing the Tamron 28-300 to all Tamron lenses is like me saying all Canon lenses are just "meh" because I used the Canon 18-55 kit lens. All manufacturers have different tiers of products. The 28-75 and 70-200 are much higher quality than the 28-300 Tamron. I had the 28-300, so I know it's a decent consumer zoom, but I wouldn't call it "good glass". However, the Tamron SP lenses and Sigma EX lenses are nice lenses for the money. Every manufacturer makes some good lenses, and some crappy lenses.

[brad]

Originally Posted by rfortson

Yeah, but comparing the Tamron 28-300 to all Tamron lenses is like me saying all Canon lenses are just "meh" because I used the Canon 18-55 kit lens. All manufacturers have different tiers of products. The 28-75 and 70-200 are much higher quality than the 28-300 Tamron. I had the 28-300, so I know it's a decent consumer zoom, but I wouldn't call it "good glass". However, the Tamron SP lenses and Sigma EX lenses are nice lenses for the money. Every manufacturer makes some good lenses, and some crappy lenses.

Yes, but in my original post, the comment I made wasn't about the cheaper, consumer lenses, it was about their "better" glass.. including the stuff they called "pro quality" .. I rented a few of those for weddings and they were a nightmare. Couldn't lock on focus in low light and slow to focus when it did.. I had to switch to manual focus while my second shooter was having no trouble at all with the same camera and canon lens. IQ wasn't nearly as good as it should have been, either. At any rate, that's my opinion of Tamron lenses.. take it for what its worth, which is exactly what you paid for it.



And to the OP: You can find the Canon 85 1.8 for under $400 .. its a good lens, but might not be different enough from your 50 for your tastes. When I was shooting a crop sensor camera, it was my go-to lens for headshots. (I use the 70-200 2.8L on a full frame sensor nowadays.)

[David Whatley]

The 85 1.8 is a steller lens and they go used for 300-350 on here all the time. The issue may be thats its to "long" for use inside the house with the kids. But it would be a steller lens to buy. You now need to decide what the (1) lens you can but will be used most for. If for the kids inside, low light, then that will be one choice, outside, walk around then thats another choice.
Check your photos that you shoot mostly for the focal length used and lets narrow it down some more.

[crazeazn]

this area is your friend:

Buy and Sell

[crazeazn]

pick up a tamron 28-75 or a canon 28-135 both are excellent options wont break the bank and give the flexibility you want.

[kenw]

Originally Posted by crazeazn

pick up a tamron 28-75 or a canon 28-135 both are excellent options wont break the bank and give the flexibility you want.

28-135IS?
while I would agree these are good lenses for a lot of purposes, for indoor low light pics the 28-135 IS canon is not going to work if quick moving kids are the subject. I have had this lens since my film days and of all the good things it may be, fast isn't one of them (f3.5@28mm). As a walk-around general purpose outdoor lens: superb bargain. Indoor no flash moving subject: not in my opinion.

A $400 top end is going to be tough, and for that reason I once again recommend a good fast prime. For indoor no flash you need fast glass, there is no substitute. Your 50/1.8 is a great start and a true keeper, but to increase your flexibility indoors you need wider a lot more often than longer.

There are lots of relatively good+fast+wide primes under $400, especially if you can find a gently used one. Again, for these exact reasons I bought the Sigma 20/1.8. While it is now outside your budget (new=$630), a used one could be found and I am sure there are others that will fill the bill for you (but the Sigma is the only one I have experience with).

[cajunautoxer]

I do this as a hobby so take it for what it's worth. When I found out my wife and I were going to have a child I thought about what lenses I have and what I need.

I bought the Sigma 30 f1.4 and enjoy it alot. If you look around they can be had for $350ish. Also the Siggy or Tammy 17-50 f2.8 can be found for >$400. Or save up a little more and get the Canon 17-40. I have seen them around $550ish but the price increased bc of the problems in Japan recently

When I want a lens I look for one used locally. That way if I don't like it when I resell it the loss isn't that much. Now I did find a reburb "brick" for less than $1200 shipped

[Texas_Flower]

Originally Posted by spluloacle

No offense taken. And point made however we are a debt free family. That also means we need savings to stay that way AND we need a fridge. I could go on and on. I feel I am good enough to learn to get stunning shots even with limited equipment for now. Eventually i will get even better stuff when I can afford better equipment.

Let me give you my personal experience, I did what you are thinking of doing...I bought the Tamron 28-300mm lens and though it is not a bad lens it is far from the tack sharp I am after.

I am not a professional but neither am I a novice, so I have a reasonable understanding of what it takes to get a clear shot.

I bought the "cheaper" lens instead of waiting (I am not known for my patience) to buy the L series I really wanted which is the 100-400mm, so I am now saving for the L series lens.

I learned a lesson, save for what you really want and has a proven track record.