I want an all-purpose lens for low-light - is IS worth it?

[Dromond]

I've got a used 30D with the Canon 50mm 1.8. So far it has been an excellent started setup. I'm looking to expand a bit but keep the gear-whoreishness and expense under control. My first choice seems to be the Tamron 17-50mm ($450) since it combines a versatile zoom range, relatively wide aperture, low weight, low cost, and good image quality.

Is it worth spending more (double) for IS at this zoom range, especially on a crop body? I realize when it would and would not work - and being able to shoot at 1/15 in the late evening is appealing. But is the benefit there more at longer focal lengths? Just thinking about having F2.8 as a widest aperture makes me miss the 1.8 already. Then again you need to go to at least 2.5 if you want something sharp on that lens.

options:
-stop hemming and hawing, buy the Tamron and only bust out the 50 when I know it will be very dark. (Thinking of 70-200 when I live in an area with more wide-open spaces.)
-Consider something more expensive since it will be on the camera most of the time.
-Continue being cheap, use the disposable 50/1.8 and stepping on garden rakes as I back up while attempting to fit things in frame.

I do:

-Just take photos for fun and interest
-Love shooting low light and murky atmospheres (often near F2.0 and ISO 800)
-Mix between moving and still subjects
-Have slightly shake hands ( and am working on that)

I don't:

-Pretend or intend to be pro
-Want to switch lenses too often (my sensor is dirty enough)
-Make large prints, or many prints at all. I am more interested in light & composition than supreme sharpness or low noise.
-Use a tripod. (Not out of principle, but the set up time is generally too long and I prefer to move around easily.)
-Use flash (I don't have one, and enjoy using natural light)


Thanks for putting up with my summer rambling everyone!

Here is a smattering:

[cmor]

The 17-50 is so cheap and light and sharp I don't think you could go wrong. I would save the money on the IS and apply it to something longer when you want it.

[kingofmyrrh]

I don't have enough hands-on experience to offer an opinion. Just wanted to say that those are some great shots, super sharp and great colours. That is all with the 50mm f/1.8?

[Dromond]

The 17-50 is so cheap and light and sharp I don't think you could go wrong. I would save the money on the IS and apply it to something longer when you want it.

Fair enough. Done.

I don't have enough hands-on experience to offer an opinion. Just wanted to say that those are some great shots, super sharp and great colours. That is all with the 50mm f/1.8?

Thanks! Yes they are all with the f/1.8 but not all at 1.8 if that makes any sense. Getting very good focus with that aperture on that lens is tough, but it's still good to have in the dark when you have your ISO cranked up already.

[Todds]

Nice shots. I think IS makes more of a difference at longer lengths.

I just picked up a 35mm 1.8 for my Nikon to use in low light conditions.

[smmokan]

One comment- if you'll be using the new lens for ski shots, you MAY want something longer... there's also a 2.8 Sigma 24-70 that could be worth looking into.

[Dromond]

One comment- if you'll be using the new lens for ski shots, you MAY want something longer... there's also a 2.8 Sigma 24-70 that could be worth looking into.

I'll be using this for general purpose and the odd east coast ski shot (which tends to be rather close up.) For more alpine type terrain I was going to get a real zoom ~70-200 rather than go halfway with the everyday lens.

[smmokan]

In that case... pull the trigger!

[LeeLau]

Dromond - i second what cmor said. I got a sigma 17 - 70 (not a 2.8) and it's been terrific for bike and outdoors shots so far. It's also fairly cheap so even if I destroy it I won't cry. The Tamron 17-50 is fantastic and I know others who've used it in rain and snow and the lens holds up fine

[Dromond]

Cool. Thanks, Lee. it sounds like the Tamron is the no-brainer that I suspected it was.

As much as people talk about the benefits of top quality lenses I am a bit hesitant about getting top-priced photo gear since I'm not making any money with it and I always tend to find myself venturing into wet and/or dirty places to get something more interesting.

[kingofmyrrh]

Thanks! Yes they are all with the f/1.8 but not all at 1.8 if that makes any sense. Getting very good focus with that aperture on that lens is tough, but it's still good to have in the dark when you have your ISO cranked up already.

Makes perfect sense. I need (well OK, strongly want) a 50mm prime and I was thinking I should really pay up for the 1.4... but seeing the results you've achieved with the 1.8 makes me really think I could be very happy with the cheaper lens. super sharp focus and great colours = all I need really.

[iscariot]

Makes perfect sense. I need (well OK, strongly want) a 50mm prime and I was thinking I should really pay up for the 1.4... but seeing the results you've achieved with the 1.8 makes me really think I could be very happy with the cheaper lens. super sharp focus and great colours = all I need really.

That's why they call it the "nifty fifty."

I have one and it takes pictures that make me seem like a far better photographer than I really am.

[Dromond]

That's why they call it the "nifty fifty."

I have one and it takes pictures that make me seem like a far better photographer than I really am.

Hah, for real. I'm sure that the 1.4 is great, but it seemed silly to pay 3X as much when I am not making any money with it. I've also read a number of reports on the focus motor breaking in the 1.4, FWIW.