Looking For the Right Lens

[KingNine]

Hello, I am a casual photographer and really just learning this great hobby. I got into it trying to get good pictures of my daughters during their ballet performances. Each step I've taken has got me a little closer to getting good pictures of them but I'm quickly running out of time. My last step was to purchase a T4i. I mainly use the kit lens 18-55 for most of the shots of them and sometimes the 55-250 if I want to get close in. I generally crank up the ISO so I can use a faster shutter speed. I find that ISO 6400 with a shutter speed of 1/400 in general is giving me the best results but not anywhere near perfect. I've pinballed around looking at lenses and my head is swimming and frankly I don't know enough to make a great desicision. The current lens I'm looking at is the Canon EF 24-105 f/4 IS USM. The other two lenses I own both go to 5.6 and I was hoping the fixed f/4 would let in more light letting me reduce the ISO for a less grainy picture. Going back and looking at most of my shots I'm usually in the 30-50mm range but that can change depending on where I get to sit at each show so a zoom lens is mandatory for me. I really want to stay around $500 to $600 if at all possible and think I can get that lens at that price range.

My second use for the camera is to film my younger daughter singing at different school or social events with an occasional picture thrown in. Would the above lens work well for that? The current  lens choices I have suck. They are noisy and hunt for focus. I've heard rave reviews of the kit lens 18-135 STM for it's fluidity of movement in almost comeplete silence. I got to play with the lens a few weeks ago at a party when someone asked me to take some pics with their camera. I marveled at the speed and silence of the focus motor. I believe the f stops on it are the exact same as my current lenses though. So If I get it as well I'm guessing I'd be in the same boat as above but with better video. If I do get this STM lens would I get the same quality pics as the kit lens I have now or is it a little better than my current  set up? The person who's camera I borrowed loved it but they aren't a photographer by any means. Any recomendations here are appreciated as well.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

One more thought on IS.  Remember IS make YOU better, it does not make the LENS better.

---

You keep saying that, but it strikes me as a distinction without a difference.

Indeed, it could be argued the other way around: IS makes the lens more forgiving of a user's inability to hold the camera steady. Doesn't that make it a better lens? But the user remains free to make all his usual mistakes, which could include failing to understand the limitations of IS and misconstruing what IS can and can't correct. So while IS presents the user with the opportunity to do better work, it doesn't actually make him better. That has to come from the user himself.

[ebiggs1]

No I disagree.  IS usually make a lens worse as it adds stuff to the light path.  Usually a lens without IS has better IQ.  That may not be true when newer designs come out.

So, in fact, IS makes you better not the lens.   IMHO, of course, as always.

Of course all this is at the pixel peeping level and of little real value in real world use.  But there, never-the-less.

[KingNine]

All of your responses have been so helpful. The Sigma sigma 17-50mm f2.8 ex dc os hsm seems to be a strong contender now over the tamron due to the IS. At the same price the image quality seems very similar on both and one has IS and the other doesn't. I just don't think I can come up with the funds for a Canon L at this time. A new car for the wife is in the works so a splurge on a L lens will probably not occur.

[ebiggs1]

I hear ya on that cost thing.   Not trying to sway you to the Tamron, but both the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm have IS.

As does the Sigma 17-50mm has IS.  Each company calls it by a different name if that is confusing you.  Sigma calls it OS. Tamron calls it VC and Canon calls it IS.

The Sigma has the edge on price and it will serve you well.  However, in this case I would prefer the Tamron over it although it will cost you nearly double.  It is your choice besides you have a good list to choose from.

[KingNine]

Yeah, the Tamron I was talking about was the one without the VC. It is nearly the same price as the Sigma and people seem to like it better than the VC one. At least in the reviews I read about it. People seemed to gush over the non VC and had some reservations on the quality of the pics coming from the VC counterpart. It was reading that review that mentioned the Sigma with it that got me side tracked on it and I've liked what I saw so for. Do you have any experience with the two Tamrons? Am I worried about nothing?

[ebiggs1]

I have both Sigma's the 24-70mm f2.8 and the 70-200mm f2.8.  The latter has OS, the first does not.  I have the Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 VC.  I do not own the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 but have used it.  I also had the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 another great lens.  I no longer have any crop bodies so I sold it.

If two lenses are avaibile one with IS and one without IS, I will always choose the one with IS.  For me IS is not a must have feature but if there is a choice I always go with IS.

Now is a lens without IS better in the IQ department?  Probaby, yes, but ony at the pixel peeping level and not likely to show up in any real world useage.  Remember you can turn IS off but you can't turn it on if it isn't there.

 Bottom line is any of these mentioned lenses are very good and will serve you well.  You need to decide which fits your circumstances best.  The best lens in the world is of little value if you can't afford it.  You need to weigh cost/benefit to you.

The Sigma 24-70mm isn't as good as the Tamron 24-70mm.  The Sigma 70-200mm is better than the Tamron 70-200mm.

But you will need Photoshop at a 100% enlargement to see it.  The Siggy 24-70mm does not have IS all the others have it availible.

The decission is yours!

[KingNine]

Guys thanks so much for the suggestions and information. I'm happy to report that a Sigma 17-55 f/2.8 OS is now on it's way to me. I'm very excited after reading and watching a lot of reviews of this lens. I think it will serve me well for what I need done. Plus it should give me the bennefit of better everyday pictures than I got from the kit lens.

[Skirball]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

One more thought on IS.  Remember IS make YOU better, it does not make the LENS better.

---

You keep saying that, but it strikes me as a distinction without a difference.

Indeed, it could be argued the other way around: IS makes the lens more forgiving of a user's inability to hold the camera steady. Doesn't that make it a better lens? But the user remains free to make all his usual mistakes, which could include failing to understand the limitations of IS and misconstruing what IS can and can't correct. So while IS presents the user with the opportunity to do better work, it doesn't actually make him better. That has to come from the user himself.

---

Pithy little sayings usually don't hold near as much wisdom as those that say them think they do.

Yes, I'd say you have the right of it.  At least, it could be argued that IS makes a photographer worse, not better.  If anything, it's the photo that is better because of IS, perhaps not the lens, but certainly not the photographer.

As far as it making the image worse:   My understanding of Canon IS, is that it simply moves a lens group laterally to the detected motion (a simple accelerometer).  So I don't believe that having IS introduces anything new into the light path, just moves what's already there.  I could be mistaken, they might put in that lens group specifically for IS, but that would surprise me.  Even then, so what, a couple more pieces of glass.  No different than the UV filter argument.