Reddit mentions of Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical Lens (IF) - Canon Mount

I'm far from an expert, but I have a 7D, and I can tell you a few things to consider.

• A 7D has a crop (APS-C) sensor, whereas the 5D has a Full Frame Sensor. The difference being that any lens you put on a 7D is going to be zoomed in by 1.6x compared to the 5D. See here. In other words, a 50mm lens on a 7D is going to act like an 80mm lens would on the 5D. Full frame sensors have a more shallow depth of field, too, which may or may no be desirable with video. Shallow DoF looks nice, but you really have to be precise when focusing.
  
  
• Both the 7D and 5D have fixed LCD view screens. The 60D, which is like a cheaper version of the 7D, has a flip out screen, so you can see what you are filming when you are in front of the camera. An alternative would be using a laptop or tablet to as an eternal monitor. Honestly, if video was my focus, I would go with the 60D. 7D is better for still photography, though. Just my opinion.
  
  
• The 7D, 5D and 60D do not have continuous focus for video, like what you are probably used to on a regular video camera. That means you have to manual focus with the focus rings on the lens, as you are filming. It gets easier with a lot of practice. The only Canon dSLR that I know of that has continuous focus on video is the Rebel T4i, which is quite a down grade from either of the previous. Also, the only lens that I know of that is compatible with continuous focus (so far) is the 40mm Pancake lens. That's a good, cheap lens to have in your arsenal, though.
  
  
  
• The 5D does not have a built in flash, but that probably doesn't matter to you, if you are only doing video. Either way, I would get a speedlight if you need a flash. I have used my pop up in a pinch, though. All the other models I mentioned do have a flash.
  
  
• Other people are likely to have different opinions, but some cheap starter lenses I would consider are; Canon 50mm ƒ/1.8 (Nifty Fifty), Canon 40mm ƒ/2.8 (Pancake Lens), and Tamron 17-50mm ƒ/2.8 (great, fast lens for video for the price IMO).
  
  Again, I cannot stress enough, that I am not as experienced as many of the photographers in this subReddit, so if they have differing opinions, you may want to consider theirs over mine. I hope I could help a little, at least.
  
  EDIT: Changed the order of my comments.

The T2i is an excellent camera, I bought mine shortly after it was released and I still love it.

The image quality is on par with a 7D or 60D but it's much cheaper. The auto-focus system isn't on par with pro-level cameras and it has a mediocre continuous shooting frame rate, but that shouldn't be a deal breaker. I've used my camera to shoot college sports (baseball and basketball), wildlife, landscapes, portraits, etc. and it has always proved to be a capable camera. If you get it, I would suggest getting a vertical grip and then saving up for some nice glass.

While the kit lens is fairly capable for outdoor shooting, you might eventually consider upgrading it to Tamron's 17-50mm lens or Canon's 17-55mm lens.

You know, I was about to type a long reply but I've decided to be lazy and copy/paste the contents of an email I sent to a buddy who just bought a T3i. I use a 60D, and use all these things, but most all this stuff should work for you with a 5D.

Crane and eyecup:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003SAHSVI

Cards:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002WE4HE2
I buy 8 or 16 gigs, with the idea being that that's NOT a lot of room. If I had a 32 or 64 gig card and that card failed I'd much rather lose 16 gigs of footage than 64 gigs which could be an ENTIRE production.

Batteries:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003ZSHKIO
Work justs as good as the Canon name brand ones.

My 'Kit' lens:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000EXR0SI

Cheapo plastic shoulder mount we used for the music video:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0036NMQ7S

Gini camera rigs:
http://www.ebay.com/sch/gini-2011/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_from=&_ipg=&_trksid=p3686
I did a minimum purchase right as the auction ended, and snagged their "dslr rig pro 10" for 235 + shipping. If you look at their past auction history, it seems like EVERYONE does this.

Audio Recorder:
http://www.amazon.com/Zoom-Handy-Portable-Digital-Recorder/dp/B001QWBM62/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1315766729&sr=8-1
They just got me this bad boy at work to plug my XLR mics into, so I record audio to it, and video to my dslr and then sync in FCP. Works awesome, however you probably could do the same thing with your HDV camera, they'd be about the same size.

As always: cheesycam.com has the best reviews and whatnot on all this stuff.

Here's KEH.com's listing for the kit lens you are looking at. They have a rating system with UG at the bottom, then BGN, and up. I'd go for BGN though, they tend to be extremely conservative with their appraisals. http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-Digital-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-DC079990648100?r=FE

Remember, it's the glass that matters. so buy the (or borrow my) cheapest lens you can and start saving for the nice lens.

There are a lot of things wrong with this post.

The 50mm/1.8 is one of the cheapest lenses out there. Because it is a prime (instead of a zoom) they can have fairly good image quality and still offer it at a decent price.

There aren't any wide angle prime lenses in this range I'm aware of (there is a 28mm prime for $400+ but that's really not very wide on an crop sensor body). For wide angle shots your best bet is using your kit lens wide open (assuming it's something like 18mm or 28mm) and saving for a true wide angle.

Saying I want a cheap wide angle lens with good quality is like saying I want a cheap computer that can play Battlefield 3 with max settings on at full resolution. You can buy a cheap lens that might be sort of a wide angle but it's not going to perform very well.

The cheapest wide angle for a Canon that's nice is probably the Sigma 10-22mm zoom lens for close to $500.

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-10-20mm-4-5-6-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0007U00X0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320951022&sr=8-1

If you are looking for a good all around lens that can go fairly wide open I'd look at something like this Tamron for $500

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-17-50mm-Aspherical-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000EXR0SI/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1320951205&sr=1-1

ignore that advice, a kit lens can still produce crisp images. This is just due to the ISO being set high, if you lowered it to 400-800 you will notice a very large difference in image quality. If you are interested in getting a lens for indoor, that you can open up your aperture a little more, i would suggest this

I replaced a 24-70mm f/2.8L with a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. I know it's a bit out of your price range, but I like the lens and it does a good job for the price:

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-17-50mm-Aspherical-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000EXR0SI/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1334387378&sr=1-1

Pros: good image quality, sharp at f/2.8

Cons: bad flare even with hood, aberrations are a lot more obvious than on an L lens, the AF motor is noisy and AF is not all that fast

Since you are pushing $1000 with the t3i I would say this winning combo is in your price range:

t2i body only |
best lens for the money

The T3i is ever so slightly better for video, if that is your priority. I like the 50mm 1.8 for video on either camera.

EDIT: I have both the 18-55mm and the 55-250mm. Both are decent, but you will outgrow them in 30 days.
The T2i is one of my cameras.

Might I suggest the Tamron 18-55 as a nice lens upgrade? This has a constant f/2.8 aperture, lovely bokeh, and marvelous colour.

I've used mine for 4 years now and loved it on an older Rebel XTi.

Just bought a GH2. I got this lens, used. It's (comparatively) expensive, but covers a lot of bases. The Crop factor of the Tamron means that that each lens is actually a double. A 20-60 becomes a 40-120, which isn't wide angle at all. Any smaller than 17 (which is 34) though, and you have distortion. Of course, most other cameras in this price range do this too, just 1.6 times instead of 2 times. I haven't gotten the lens in yet but it seems really solid. Other than that I was primarily going to use FDs. I didn't want anything slower than 3.0, as the best feature of the GH2 is probably it's sharpness. I would be very interested in what everybody else recommends.

I guess it's a matter of preference. What most zooms lack is the speed that primes have. For instance, that Sigma 30mm is a very fast lens at f1.4. Will you ever use 1.4? Maybe, it's kind of tricky in itself since there such shallow depth of field. The zooms on the other hand are fairly slower (f3.5 vs f1.4) but are more convenient when it comes to being able to frame shots. I know a fairly solid DP who uses one zoom lens and her work is fantastic (granted, it's nice glass and currently is ~$2000 on Amazon)

I'm a prime guy myself. My kit is nothing but primes save for a couple of zooms (I guess you can count the Tokina 11-16 as a zoom too, if you'd like). If you're set on a zoom, consider getting the t3i body and perhaps this lens...it's pretty fast for a zoom and gives you a fairly solid range.

Tokina 11-16 is a good choice.

You are being downvoted because you make the same mistakes as everyone else starting out. Good move getting the 35mm prime, it's a great lens. Most people would have preferred to get a 17-50 f/2.8 lens instead of the 18-200 zoom you got, however. Superzooms lenses like that one (which can zoom waaay in and out) have horrible image quality. Sure, they're convenient: everything in one package. But spending so much money on a camera to get images that are somewhat blurry isn't the best move.

The 35mm lens is a great lens, made even better at its low price at $200. The 18-200 superzoom is around $650. The Tokina is around $600. You could probably switch out the superzoom for the Tamron 17-50 and a 50mm f/1.8G, which is another great lens.

All the previous lenses mentioned are a great starter kit, very general-usage based, and suitable for everyone. In that senario, instead of buying the Tokina 11-16 now, you have a choice: Get a super wide angle lens (The Tokina 11-16) or get a nice telephoto lens, such as the Nikon 70-300, or lastly, some macro lens. Your choice depends on your style: whether you like to zoom in, take ultrawide shots, or come in close to your subject. Either way, you end up with a nice set of lenses that you will enjoy using.

I just got the 17-50 non-VC a couple days ago. Autofocus is loud, it really surprised me. I have used other Tamron lenses before and have the 28-75, but the 17-50 is definitely noticeable. This may actually play to your favor, subtly causing your baby to look at the camera.

FYI, Even though its noisy I'm keeping mine. Oh and its $400 on Amazon right now (as opposed to $460).

Amazon &
Rebate

Just to compare, here is a selection from the Canon side of things with Amazon used prices:
Canon 7d - $990
Tamron 17-50 2.8 - $340
These two are a great basis to work off off and get you to $1330.

If you want to spend some more you could add the following:
Canon 50mm f/1.8 - 100
Canon Speedlite 430EX - 235

But to be honest, if your wife is just starting out and money is a bit tight, don't go out spending $900 or more on a body. As most people will tell you, picture quality is mostly due to lenses. Canon t3i, Canon t4i or 60D as well as Nikon 3200 and 5100 are all excellent bodies and have more than enough features to keep her happy. If you get either of those bodies and a decent 17-50mm lens as well as a 50mm prime she will have great tools to learn on with space to grow.

Just like daegon I would recommend to buy used. Most Photographers look out for their things quite well and most of these lenses and bodies are made at quite good quality levels. I hope this helps.

Do you think that this would do the job?

> Do they make 1.8 EF-S?

The mount on the lens, EF or EF-S, isn't what applies the crop factor. It's the sensor on your body. Unless you have a full frame body, like the 5D, the 50mm f/1.8 lens will have a smaller field of view.

There are other prime lenses (fixed focal length lens) you can look at (scroll down to the 'Wide-Angle' section) if you want something wider.

If you want a zoom lens check out these lenses if you'd like to supplant your kit lens: the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens or the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 or the Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8. (Disclaimer: I have not used any of these three lenses and cannot attest to their quaility)

In America that is not the case.

You are right, lenses are definitely more important, especially because it seems like most of your shots will be landscapes, and you'll have plenty of time to set up the composition. You won't need expensive bodies.

Get a Canon Rebel; they're good cameras and will give you as much functionality as you'll be able to use - as this is your first DSLR.

As lenses go, I would recommend a Tamron 17-50 non-VC, which is on par with the Canon 17-40 L lens. Also, you might want to consider a telephoto; my suggestion for this would be the Canon 55-250 IS, which is also a great lens.

A few more questions:

1. Will you be using it professionally?
   
2. Is there a specific 50D you have in mind (like a friend or family member's) or were you planning on buying it from the internet?
   
3. What lens were you considering?
   
4. What is your current/previous model?
   
   The rule of thumb I hear most often regarding camera equipment is: "spend less on the camera and buy a better lens"
   
   During the five years following the purchase of my snazzy new Canon 40D I have watched it's price drop almost 90%, while the kit lens it came with is still worth about the same price as it was 5 years ago.
   
   Besides that, a better lens will improve the quality of the photograph more than a better camera. The kit lens that comes with Canon Rebels is absolute rubbish compared to... well just about any other lens.
   
   With 780 USD you could get a slightly used 40D and this f/2.8. That is my "walk around" set up and the only complaints I have are
   
5. no video and
   
6. no swivel screen
   
   Also in the price range is a used Canon 5D (the one that came out in 2008), but you would have much less to spend on a lens and your current lens selection might not work with it.
   
   Here's a comparison of the four cameras mentioned
   
   and a comparo of the two you mentioned
   
   If you like to shoot music gigs im guessing low light performance is important, the second link includes that at the bottom