| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/19/2006 03:12:49 PM · #1 |
I am just curious if any one here has compared these lenses. The Canon 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS is about $400. It has a longer reach and I am curious if the IS compensates for ebing a slower lense. The Tamron 28-75 gets talked about alot here as a great lense and I am sure it is for around $350.
I will be buying one or the other soon. I will be using it for indoor shooting without a flash, like weddings & events. So, anyone who can give me some good feed back, I would appreciate it. Or if there is something else in this price, I would be curious to know. Thanks for the imput.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2006 03:19:46 PM · #2 |
| You can easily find the 28-75 for about $300 shipped on FM. I haven't used the 28-135 but I have used the 28-105 that is reviewed better for image quality and I can say the 28-75 destroys the 28-105. So...I'd have to say the IS on the 28-135 (especially because it's not a telephoto) doesn't outweigh the benefits of the Tamron. |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 04:52:43 PM · #3 |
Get teh Tamron SP24-135 and be happy. It is one of the best lenses money can buy, about $400.
the 28-135 is about average, and IS is not really needed below 50 or 60mm anyway. It adds extra complexity, cost and battery drain.
The 28-75 is an excellent lens. I went with a Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX for my everday lens, but found 50mm a bit limiting. I had a 28-80 and 28 is not wide enough for me, and 80 seems to be a tad short too.
check the reviews on //www.fredmiranda.com - the Tamaron SP24-135 is rated a 9.3 with 100% of owners recomending it - very very very few lenses get that kind of praise. It does macro too. I got mine for $365 after rebate - and the rabte was in my hands in about 10 days. Super fast.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2006 04:55:48 PM · #4 |
The Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 but I have found that now I need a ultra wide lens to make up for the Tamron not being very wide. I have had the lens for about 3 weeks and love it.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2006 08:35:11 PM · #5 |
The Tamron SP24-135 looks like an interesting lenses, but it is a bit slow for shooting w/o a flash in low light situations. I currently own the Sigma 18-200 which has Ok optics and amazing versatility, so it would be a bit redundant to get the Tamron.
Any other thoughts or options?
|
|
|
|
02/19/2006 09:25:34 PM · #6 |
I say get the 28-75.
2.8 is great to have, and of course it's a really well built lens with great optics. |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 09:29:19 PM · #7 |
I don't know about the Tamron...but the 28-135 is a fantastic lense. It is my general usage lense and the IS is such a positive. Vey happy with this lense
MHO and 2bits worth
cheers |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 02:18:21 AM · #8 |
I vote for Tamron.
Both are reviewed at photozone.de, the Tamron is sharper on the tests and from my experience as well. I sold the 28-135IS for the Tamron and am very happy with it. I only wish I had gotten the Sigma 24-70 b/c I'd like a wider lens and b/c it's bigger/heavier, which I like.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 02:50:02 AM · #9 |
Well, I did a little "research" last night... I went out with my Canon 50mm f1.8 & my Sigma 105mm macro f2.8 and was shooting with only ambient lighting. The results were that I found the 50mm too short and the f2.8 was just a tad slow, but workable.
My desire for a zoom is the versatility that it would provide, but I am see that finding a lense to satisfy may take a leap up to a much higher price level.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 03:11:43 AM · #10 |
I have no complaints on the 28-135mm IS. Most of my photos were taken with that lens and so far I haven't found a reason to give up the extra reach or the IS.
Message edited by author 2006-02-20 03:16:53. |
|
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: 09/23/2025 01:55:14 AM EDT.
