| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/26/2005 10:49:30 AM · #1 |
Finally decided on the Tamron 28-75 for portrait and walk around lens.
For the wide angle I'm thinking of the 17-40 or the 10-22. The 17-40 seems to be more flexible and practical in its range and more consistant in center to edge sharpness. The question is, is the 17-40 WIDE enough for typical landscape photography. The 10-22 seems to have maybe too much distortion, and it may be frustrating if you need to get a little more zoom in the shot.
On the other hand, is 17-40 too close to the 28-75, where the 10-22 would give me more wide angle range.
Sorry for all the questions, but spending this much money makes me want to make the right decision the first time.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 10:51:28 AM · #2 |
The 17-40 is not 'close' to the 28-75 at all.
You can't compare these lenses as 11mm apart on the wide end. You have to look at it as a percentage. The 17mm lens is about 50% wider than the 28mm lens. |
|
|
|
03/26/2005 10:56:34 AM · #3 |
I have the 17-40 and waiting for my 24-70 to arrive (customs decided to hang on to it). I'll be keeping both as there is a world of difference at the wide end. The 24-70 will be my walkaround lens when I don't feel strong enough to carry the (now rather full/heavy) billingham bag.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 11:01:30 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by RickH:
Finally decided on the Tamron 28-75 for portrait and walk around lens.
For the wide angle I'm thinking of the 17-40 or the 10-22. The 17-40 seems to be more flexible and practical in its range and more consistant in center to edge sharpness. The question is, is the 17-40 WIDE enough for typical landscape photography. The 10-22 seems to have maybe too much distortion, and it may be frustrating if you need to get a little more zoom in the shot.
On the other hand, is 17-40 too close to the 28-75, where the 10-22 would give me more wide angle range.
Sorry for all the questions, but spending this much money makes me want to make the right decision the first time. |
Manic swears by the Tamron 28-75 and I swear by the Canon 10-22. I love it. I don't know how I ever lived without it.
June
edit: typo
Message edited by author 2005-03-26 11:03:15.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 12:02:52 PM · #5 |
| The 28-75 is what I use for a walk around lens, and I've been quite pleased with it so far. For the price it is a stellar lens imo. |
|
|
|
03/26/2005 12:14:12 PM · #6 |
I picked up the 28-75 about a month ago (sold my Canon 28-135 to buy the Tamrom), and am loving it. It's my new walk-around lens. I also have the 17-40, which gives me all the width I need for landscapes (if I need it really wide, I use the 17-40 on my film body...).
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 12:21:09 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by lenkphotos:
I picked up the 28-75 about a month ago (sold my Canon 28-135 to buy the Tamrom), and am loving it. It's my new walk-around lens. I also have the 17-40, which gives me all the width I need for landscapes (if I need it really wide, I use the 17-40 on my film body...). |
I also sold my Canon 28-135 for the Tamron and I never looked back. It is an awesome lens. Dollar for Dollar probably the best lens in it's class. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/15/2025 03:14:34 PM EDT.
