I like the Tamaron 17-50mm but does it need to be VC for it to work with the T2i?

And since I already have a Nikon to Canon mount, can I use the Nikon mounted ones?

You can buy a Nikon to EF adapter from e bay, I bought mine through Kawaphoto, eBay My World - kawaphoto

The tokina 11-16mm 2.8 after checking the uk price i see its about the same price as the 550D body, can it realy be worth the the same..

Thanks! Thats exactly where I got my Nikon to Canon EOS adapter. I currently am using a 28mm f1.8 Nikkor lens. However I want to use the Tamaron 17-50mm but am wondering if since I have the Nikon to Canon mount, I could use the Nikon mounted version instead of the Canon. Reason being because I can find the Nikon versions substantially cheaper..

Terry, I've a Tammy 17-50mm, but it is a EF mount.

My suggestion is that if your main camera is a nikon and "ONLY" use the T2i for filming, sure.

But if your main camera is T2i, and want to save a little money by using the nikon mount, it doesn't seems logical to me. As you will lose the AF function for still image on the T2i.

Another suggestion, buy a used one on Ebay, I bought a 90mm on Ebay before and it works perfectly.

The T2i is my main filming camera as of now and hardly used for photography so as you suggested the Tamron would work for this application. I just wanted to make sure that the choice of Nikon mount instead of Canon mount would work for film..but you do bring up a good point about the AF which might be a good thing to have if I wanted to do some photography...which is likely.

Thanks for your time!

I gotta add another vote for the 17-55 2.8 IS and the 70-200 2.8 IS mkII. Last 3 music videos and the zombie flick i keep spamming were done mostly on those two lenses.

For lens #3? i'm undecided. Probably a 50mm 1.4. 1.8 is probably bright enough, but the focus ring sucks.

I think the 24-70 F2.8L is a must-have lens, it is a little expensive but the quality of the glass and the image that it produce worth every single penny.

I know it does not have IS, but it really doesn't need it if you use it on a monopod or a tripod which you have to do anyway when you're shooting video with DSLR.

Hey Andrew, LOVED the interactive zombie film..

However I wasn't feeling the bokeh for either of those lenses...I thought it looked a bit smeary..

i was just wondering... as i have a canon 50mm 1.4... how does the tamron 17-50 2.8 compare to it in low light? if i just set the canon to 2.8 i'll get a precise idea?

i'm going to shoot a feature film with lots of night street scenes, available light... i would hate to get them with only one focal length!

i'm going to get the tamron anyway, but i'm thinking if i should or shouldn't add a sigma 30mm 1.4 for the night street scenes...

With both at maximum aperture, in theory the Tamron lets in one quarter the light of the Canon. Two stops is a lot.

Not really. A rough idea exposure wise at best.

It's always hard to get a clean image at night with only available light, even with a f/1.4 lens. You need all the light you can get for best results

Depends how important the results. If you don't mind higher ISO's you might get by with a f/2.8 zoom.

The problem your going to have shooting at 1.4 is that very little of your frame will actually be in focus. 1.4 with a 50mm lens will give you a sliver dof that is pretty much unusable except for cool little detail shots. I've noticed tons of people trying to shoot this way and having an overly out of focus image just isn't appealing. To be honest it looks pretty amateurish to me.

BTW to all... don't know if anyone noticed that sigma released a 17-50mm with image stabilation (OS) a couple months ago. I prefer sigm to tamron for build quality so I would give that one a look if you're in the market. Unfortunately it doesn't have full time manual which the expensive canon does.

You're right Scott. There is a lot of stuff out there that demonstrates the fashion for out of focus DLSR shots.

Your point about shooting at f/1.4 is correct, but let's look at the numbers. Taking a 50mm lens, a subject at 10 feet from the lens at f/1.4 has a depth of field of 0.69 feet. Stepping up to f/2.8, you have 1.29 feet, roughly double.

Both depths of fields are difficult to manage without looking, as you say, amateurish. However, working with half the depth of field yields quadruple the light, which looks like a good trade off. At least you have the option of splitting the difference and shooting at f/2.

The point being, you can never have too fast glass, especially for the stated goal of shooting at night using available light. Also worth bearing in mind that typically, lenses start to become sharper when stopped down a couple of clicks. In other words, if you do decide to shoot at f/2.8, the f/1.4 lens will typically be sharper than the native f/2.8 lens.

Interesting insights... the thing with high iso is that it gets very color noisy! Not nice...

Found a review on the Sigma, not favored when compared to the Tamron!

Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Lens Review

That's interesting... I wonder if the reviewer got a crap copy of the sigma... It seems I've rarely read a review where a tamron has siginifigantly outperformed a sigma... good info though...