[ALEXIS_DH]

so, i started taking photography somewhat seriously some 6 months ago. am slowly taking the ropes of it and absolutely loving it!!!!!!!!!!

i bought:

canon t1i, which i like a lot.
17-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS kit lens
55-250mm IS lens f4.0-5.6 (not the cheap III version, nor the expensive USM neither).

id like to keep the body, as upgrading to a full frame doesnt seem to be very cost-effective at the moment. lenses seem to be the best place for improvement.

i mostly take:
- portraits (kids, in good light, i get nice ones with the zoom lens, but low light portraits suck balls, as my zoom lens only does f5.0 or so at 120mm)
- sports scenes (dh in bright light, for this, the 55-250 is fine, although not very sharp above 160-180mm or so)
- mountain scenery, i like the 17mm focal length for this.

now, ideally, i would like to have a one do-it all lens, but i have come to terms this is impossible. i´d love to have multiple L lenses, but i really cant commit that much money in glass for the time being.

so, in my uninformed research, i´ve narrowed my choices

tamron 18-55mm f2.8
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-17-50mm-Aspherical-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000EXR0SI/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1306905780&sr=8-2

tamron 70-200mm f2.8
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-200mm-Macro-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0012GLHL2/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1306905780&sr=8-4

which will cover almost the same 17-200mm i have now, only in f2.8, but without IS.
I use autofocus a lot, will i loose a lot of autofocus speed if I go with non-canon lenses? any other aids i loose by going non-canon?

any other choices you might suggest?

actually, am not set at all in the zoom ranges.
id appreciate reccomendations as if i didnt have any lenses at all, and i want to cover the 17-200mm range (f2.8 if possible) for under $1000.
now, i do not own a real flash, and have never used or seen one.. so maybe a lot of this "low light" problems could be solved by using one and boucing light... although $300 for a light seems a bit obscene to me...

ive thought about 24-135 f4 (but f4 its too slow), or 24-70 f2.8 (too expensive and too narrow range)....

 

[RUFUS]

I'll answer tomorrow but move this to creative pursuits!

 

[Quo Fan]

Tamron makes good glass. I have the Tamron 28-300 f3.5-5.6 XR DI VC lens. It is a little soft outside of 270mm, but I have L glass to cover that range.

Generally, you get what you pay for in lenses. Inexpensive lenses are not worth the money to me. I have 2 L lenses, 17-40 f4 and the 100-400 f4.5-5.6. I use these almost exclusively on my 30D. The Tamron focuses just as fast as my L glass, as I use autofocus almost exclusively, because I can't see well through the lens. I shot indoor basketball with the Tamron lens, and the shots came out good.

 

[narlus]

take a look at a prime, for portraits...the 85 f/1.8 is an excellent choice (though at $400 might be too much cash?).

i am spoiled as i have 16-200 fully covered by three lenses, all @ f/2.8, and 5 primes to choose from as well.

but i still lust after the 300 f/2.8 (however, my $ is going towards building a decent lighting kit, and i dropped some more $ in pursuit of that today).

 

[moff_quigley]

Canon's 17-55 f2.8 IS USM is worth taking a look at. Right at a grand though.

 

[narlus]

Canon's 17-55 f2.8 IS USM is worth taking a look at. Right at a grand though.

for a crop body, that's an ideal choice. no weather sealing, and it's prone to lens flare, but otherwise it's a great lens.

the sigma 30 f/1.4 is another great lens to consider. when i had my 30D, both of those lenses got significant use.

 

[Silver]

Composition and lighting. 99.9%* of shooters never hit gear limitations. I've seen a lot of absolute **** done with fantastic gear.

* Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forty percent of all people know that.

 

[dante]

I have the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 F/2.8 XR Di SP something-something-something and love it. Relatively quick AF (but buzzy as hell), good picture quality, And relatively innexpensive. The 17-55mm canon is obviously better (slightly better picture quality, IS, and slightly faster focusing) but costs 2x as much.

I've heard... mixed things about the Tamron 70-200mm, particularly with regards to the AF speed. How about the Canon 70-200mm f4? It's fast (AF speed), takes amazing pictures, and while it's an f4, the picture quality is at the level where you can take pictures *at* f4 and not have to stop it down to get better quality. It's also $100 cheaper than the Tamron and smaller/lighter to boot.

I went the opposite route, pairing a 100mm f2 with my 17-50mm 2.8. It's fast as hell, inconspicuous, and while it's ok for portraits it's a little close on a crop body.

Unless you're talking about these kind of "portraits"...