I am about to place an order for the 600D and the Tamron AF 17-50mm F2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Canon from Amazon. I just want to confirm from the great people in here that what I am ordering here all is correct. I decided not to go for the VC as its a little expensive.

The next lens I want to purchase is the 50mm 1.4 this is supposed to be a great lense for close up shots I just wanted to know compared to the Tamron what advantages will the 50mm give me? Is it worth purchasing that lens aswell owning the Tamron? Thank you.

2.8--------1.4 = much faster. 2.8 is about the minimum requirement for indoor shooting. 1.4 will get you out of a lot of dark holes

Vc good if you do photos also as video!!

The 50mm 1.4 will allow you to shoot in much darker conditions. It will also allow you to use extremely shallow DOF.

Ok I have purchased my 600D and am now ready to move on to the lens I have seen so many good and bad reviews about the Tamron it's driving me crazy, the next best thing to the Tamron 17-50 non VC or VC is double the price and I believe that is the Canon 17-55.

If I were to purchase the non VC Tamron and use it on a flycam do you think it will perform well for videography? Buying the non VC means I have enough money left over for the flycam, If I purchase the VC i'll have to do a little more saving but is it really worth it? I will also be using a battery grip mounted to the camera which I am not sure will help stabilize the image.

I have the non-VC version and it's been doing great. Just practice, practice, practice and you'll know the limitations of the lens handheld or on a shoulder mount/flycam.

I was hand-held for a few shots of my music video here: "Fade" - Hudson K produced by Aperture Arts on Vimeo and for another larger project that I just finished which I unfortunately can't show yet..