Please help me compare lenses

[cmezoom56]

I am just a DSLR beginner. I have been reading reviews all morning on 2 lenses:
Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 or Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS. I found a used Tamron for $350, whereas a new Canon is around $1000. Since I'm beginner, I thought I'd go with the Tamron because the price is right. As a beginner, is image stabilization really important? I thought I could go with the used Tamron until I have more experience with the DSLR (Canon Rebel XSI). Your opinion is appreciated. Thank you!

[natek313]

The image stabilization (IS) could be important, depending on what conditions you plan to shoot in. If you're going to be shooting mostly outdoors during the day, then you would probably find that you wouldn't need IS that much. But, if you're going to be shooting in low light conditions a lot where your shutter speeds will be getting slow, then you may want to consider the IS.

Another thing you may want to consider is the lens mount on the Canon lens; it is EF-S, which means that you'll only be able to use it on bodies that have a cropped sensor. If you ever decide to purchase a full-frame camera, then you won't be able to use this lens on it.

But, I think the biggest factor is going to be your budget.

[cmezoom56]

Originally Posted by natek313

But, I think the biggest factor is going to be your budget.

Thanks for responding. I appreciate your opinion. As my intention for this lens would be indoors, I'm going to wait until I can afford the Canon lens. Thank you!

[inkista]

When you're shooting indoors in low light, are you going to be shooting things that move or are you going to be shooting things that sit still? Because IS/stabilization is more like a tripod or a monopod--it only eliminates camera shake blur, not subject motion blur. You can use slower shutter speeds without adding blur from camera shake, but you still need a faster shutter speed to freeze motion. And the only way to get that is with a higher iso, or a wider aperture settings (smaller f-number).

If you're just looking for a lens that can shoot indoors without a flash, I'd actually recommend the EF 50mm f/1.8 II. It's about $100 new, and while it doesn't zoom (you have to "zoom with your feet"), it's inexpensive, it's sharper than the 18-55 kit lens, and compared to the f/5.6 max. aperture of the 18-55 @55mm, the 50/1.8 is more than three stops wider. That means eight times (2³) the lamount of light--the difference between iso 800 and iso 100, or (roughly) the difference between 1/250s and 1/30s.

[photog1107]

I agree with Inkista entirely about the need for the IS being dependant upon what you are shooting. Light is only one factor to consider; subject motion is another. If it is portraiture or still life, the IS won't be as important. If it's for indoor sports, it will be invaluable.

For what it is worth, I bought the 17-50 Tamron 2.8 about a year ago, and it is a great all-around lens for indoor/outdoor family photos, indoor stills, outdoor landcapes... I have enjoyed it immensely. --ds

[thegrandpoohbah]

For the price, the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 can't be beat. Especially now that they are coming down in price as Tamron launches the new VC (vibration Compensation) version of this lens.