# Lens recommendation



## Erikerodri (Mar 26, 2013)

Hello this is my first post to this website. I recently purchased a 6d and am on the fence between 2 lenses. I currently have a 70-200 2.8 sigma os, and am borrowing a family members 17-40l in the meantime. I upgraded from a rebel t3i which i still have and plan to still use. I take portraits, occasional street photography and would like to get into weddings at some point. The 2 lenses I would like to get are the sigma 35mm 1.4 or the tamron sp 24-70 2.8 vc. Id like to get both in the future but will have to settle on one for the time being. Which one would I be happier with result wise?


----------



## moocowe (Mar 26, 2013)

The Sigma 35mm is my new favourite lens, but I would get the Tamron 24-70 first if your only other lens is a 70-200. If you get the 24-70 now, you could also get the Canon 50mm f/1.8 to tide you over until you get the Sigma.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Mar 26, 2013)

You didn't mention if the 17-40 is on "long term" lend or not, so I'll assume you still have access to it.
It also sounds like you have a limited budget. I wouldn't buy either one of the lenses you mentioned.
I would buy a 50mm f1.4 which is currently around $300, use it until I feel I had "mastered" it and then
add a second lens. Hopefully by then the new 35mm f1.4 will be available - and it will be a "reasonable"
price - as a second lens or the current 35mm f1.4 will be a "bargain" as the new version is delivered.
The third lens I would buy would be the 135mm f2.0L which is a wonderful lens or if I couldn't afford it,
I'd buy the old 100mm macro. Might even swap places with the last two purchases if the 17-40 is 
still "on loan".


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 26, 2013)

Erikerodri said:


> Hello this is my first post to this website. I recently purchased a 6d and am on the fence between 2 lenses. I currently have a 70-200 2.8 sigma os, and am borrowing a family members 17-40l in the meantime. I upgraded from a rebel t3i which i still have and plan to still use. I take portraits, occasional street photography and would like to get into weddings at some point. The 2 lenses I would like to get are the sigma 35mm 1.4 or the tamron sp 24-70 2.8 vc. Id like to get both in the future but will have to settle on one for the time being. Which one would I be happier with result wise?


I use the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC and it is a good lens to complement your Sigma 70-200.
I've never used the Sigma 35 1/4, so can't comment on that.

The things I like about Tamron 24-70 VC are:
1. Performs excellently in stabilizing camera shake, I found its stabilization to be better than my EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II lens.
2. I found it to have same image quality as EF 24-70 f/2.8 L (first version) 
3. The only Full Frame compatible f/2.8 lens that has built in Image Stabilization / VC (Vibration Compensation)
4. Very reasonably priced.
If you liked your images made with the EF 17-40, you will like the Tamron 24-70 VC *even more* ... its a lot sharper, crisper and a lot less barrel distortion then the 17-40. 
If it helps you could check this short video review, of Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC lens, I made a couple of months ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6XHTIEeOvs


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 26, 2013)

24-70. For most people, it is better to cover the range you need first unless you know that you'll additional funds to spend soon. If you have a larger budget, you could try covering the range with 2 primes: a 35 and a 50/85. The primes deliver better IQ and get you the shallower DOF, which is nice when the background in unattractive or cluttered.


----------



## kubelik (Mar 26, 2013)

given your uses (portraits, street, weddings), I agree with dickgrafix above. get the 50mm f/1.4, or even look at the 85mm f1/.8. much better suited for low light and people than the 35 f/1.4 or a 24-70 f/2.8.


----------



## Erikerodri (Mar 26, 2013)

I forgot to mention i do have the 50mm 1.8 canon but i feel it is a odd length for me i feel like its too long. I am borrowing this lens (the 17-40) basically until i buy the next lens. I am on a limited budget i basically have enough for one lens. I have about $1350 at the moment


----------



## emag (Mar 26, 2013)

Erikerodri said:


> I forgot to mention i do have the 50mm 1.8 canon but i feel it is a odd length for me i feel like its too long. I am borrowing this lens (the 17-40) basically until i buy the next lens. I am on a limited budget i basically have enough for one lens. I have about $1350 at the moment



If you feel 50mm is too long on your 6D, then you will likely feel the same about the 35 on your T3i. I'd go for the Tammy. After a few months, see if you've developed a preference - where you've used it the most (i.e., wide or tele end), and base your prime lens purchase on that.


----------



## Botts (Mar 26, 2013)

emag said:


> Erikerodri said:
> 
> 
> > I forgot to mention i do have the 50mm 1.8 canon but i feel it is a odd length for me i feel like its too long. I am borrowing this lens (the 17-40) basically until i buy the next lens. I am on a limited budget i basically have enough for one lens. I have about $1350 at the moment
> ...



Do you like 40mm on the 17-40? I find it stays on my 6D far more than my 50mm. Those 10mm make a big difference.

I've shot with the 24-70/4 IS, and the 24-70/2.8 VC in the last month. I found I really liked the 24-70VC, but I also love the 35mm f/1.4. It'll depend on what you shoot the most.

I'd sort your LightRoom or your Aperture by list and focal length. That will likely really help with your decision.


----------



## Erikerodri (Mar 26, 2013)

Botts said:


> Do you like 40mm on the 17-40? I find it stays on my 6D far more than my 50mm. Those 10mm make a big difference.
> 
> I've shot with the 24-70/4 IS, and the 24-70/2.8 VC in the last month. I found I really liked the 24-70VC, but I also love the 35mm f/1.4. It'll depend on what you shoot the most.
> 
> I'd sort your LightRoom or your Aperture by list and focal length. That will likely really help with your decision.



Hi, I find I don't really use the 17-40 using the full 40mm but I do use it a lot around the 30mm and 35mm range. I would like to have both at some point I'm just trying to find which one to have first. I'd like it more for portraits at the moment. If you've used both, how does the tammy 24-70 2.8 vc bokeh compare to the sigma 35mm 1.4 bokeh? Thanks for the info


----------



## Botts (Mar 28, 2013)

Erikerodri said:


> Botts said:
> 
> 
> > Do you like 40mm on the 17-40? I find it stays on my 6D far more than my 50mm. Those 10mm make a big difference.
> ...



I'd reach for the f/1.4 every time if I were shooting portraits at 35mm. At 35mm, 2.8 really isn't enough to throw the background sufficiently OOF in my opinion. The Sigma 35mm bokeh can be harsher than the Canon L bokeh in my opinion as well. If I were buying a 35mm solely on bokeh quality, I'd buy a used Canon 35mm. If you're taking landscapes or other things you want extremely sharp, you may want to go Sigma.

If you are looking for a "traditional" portrait where you focus on the individual, and have no regard for the background being in focus, or really showing where the person is, I'd go with a 70-200 f/4 even, or a 100mm or 135mm as the length really helps with narrowing depth of field. At 125-200mm and a close subject, even f/4 is enough to really throw out the background.
If you want to shoot "environmental" portraits, where the surroundings of your subject are important, one of the areas I really struggled when developing as a photographer was using too wide of an aperture. I.e. I have portraits that I intended to be environmental, but the environment is entirely out of focus. The worst was when I tried to compromise and have a half blurred environment. Since then I've started using my tele's for portraits, and a 35mm or similar, usually my 40STM for environmental portraits, and not worry about keeping a small DOF.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 28, 2013)

If you don't need IS and you don't need to shoot between 40-70, then go for the Sigma. The Tamron is excellent, but the Sigma is "best in class".


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 28, 2013)

Erikerodri said:


> Hello this is my first post to this website. I recently purchased a 6d and am on the fence between 2 lenses. I currently have a 70-200 2.8 sigma os, and am borrowing a family members 17-40l in the meantime. I upgraded from a rebel t3i which i still have and plan to still use. I take portraits, occasional street photography and would like to get into weddings at some point. The 2 lenses I would like to get are the sigma 35mm 1.4 or the tamron sp 24-70 2.8 vc. Id like to get both in the future but will have to settle on one for the time being. Which one would I be happier with result wise?



i'd get the sigma and hope in the meantime sigma also bring out a 24-70 f2.8 OS too
oh wait hang on I did do that 

i'm not a fan of tamron and dont trust the build

the sigma 35 is superbly built


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 28, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> Erikerodri said:
> 
> 
> > Hello this is my first post to this website. I recently purchased a 6d and am on the fence between 2 lenses. I currently have a 70-200 2.8 sigma os, and am borrowing a family members 17-40l in the meantime. I upgraded from a rebel t3i which i still have and plan to still use. I take portraits, occasional street photography and would like to get into weddings at some point. The 2 lenses I would like to get are the sigma 35mm 1.4 or the tamron sp 24-70 2.8 vc. Id like to get both in the future but will have to settle on one for the time being. Which one would I be happier with result wise?
> ...


Having owned 8 Sigma lenses in the past, I would say the Tamron 24-70 VC has better built quality and better feel than most of the sigma lenses ... of course I have never used the new "Art line" series of Sigma lenses, from what I see on youtube and read on the net, they seem to have superior built quality, in fact some are saying the Sigma 35 f/1.4 has better built quality than the Canon equivalent.


----------



## Erikerodri (Apr 8, 2013)

Well i bought the tamron 24-70 and i am not sure if i received a bad copy. The images dont look too sharp to me but i am not 100%sure. I will post images i took later to have you guys take a look and confirm or deny it. I am just basing this on some shots ive taken. Any recommendations on how else to test this? Should i do the old brick wall test? I do have focal pro, is there any test o. That i can use to help determine? I did micro calibrate it and it did help i am just not sure if it is not as good as it should be


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 9, 2013)

Erikerodri said:


> Well i bought the tamron 24-70 and i am not sure if i received a bad copy. The images dont look too sharp to me but i am not 100%sure. I will post images i took later to have you guys take a look and confirm or deny it. I am just basing this on some shots ive taken. Any recommendations on how else to test this? Should i do the old brick wall test? I do have focal pro, is there any test o. That i can use to help determine? I did micro calibrate it and it did help i am just not sure if it is not as good as it should be


What did you shoot so far?


----------



## Erikerodri (Apr 9, 2013)

I have taken a few images of family members indoors, pictures of my dogs outside, and random items around the house. I didnt have time to upload anything yesterday but will tonight. Any things you can recommend that i should try shooting to test the quality of the lens?


----------



## Erikerodri (Apr 10, 2013)

Alright here are some samples. The ones with good lighting i feel came out ok but are the ones without flash or natural light look ok? i think they come out overly soft but i'm not sure. the first one is no light, the one outside is on a bright sunny day and the last is with a wireless flash


----------



## Erikerodri (Apr 10, 2013)

oh yeah none of them are processed, just slightly cropped in lightroom. they were shot in raw and converted to jpg. they were shot with a canon 6d handheld with vibration reduction on


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 10, 2013)

They look sharp to me. 
Assuming you were using f/2.8 and you were close to the subject, those pictures, IMHO, are well within the accepted sharpness levels.
Btw, I like the last pic of the cat, very nicely composed.


----------



## Erikerodri (Apr 10, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> They look sharp to me.
> Assuming you were using f/2.8 and you were close to the subject, those pictures, IMHO, are well within the accepted sharpness levels.
> Btw, I like the last pic of the cat, very nicely composed.


Thanks for the response. I am not sure if i am being too critical or not so it helps. Thanks for the comment as well


----------

