| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/03/2006 11:21:13 PM · #1 |
Which one for a good walk around lens?
on Fred Miranda these were both rated highly.
One thing thous is that many reviews stated they had to try out a few of the Tamrons before they found one that 'fit' there camera...meaning one might not focus at all and have soft pictures, but another would be dead-on and tack sharp.
Any suggestions? This would be for my 350D I'm getting. |
|
|
|
08/03/2006 11:46:32 PM · #2 |
The 28-105 is a 3.5-4.5 right? So it's between half a stop and a stop and a half slower than the Tamron if that's the case. It might not make much of a difference at the wide end, but at the long end sometimes the faster shutter speed really helps. And it's simpler IMO to have a lens with a constant aperture.
I don't know about others, but I only ever had to buy one copy of the Tamron to get one that works just fine. I don't think I would mess with a lens where half of them didn't work properly, but I haven't heard anything like that about this particular lens.
Actually, for a walkaround lens, it sort of depends on your preference to wide vs. long shots. If you want to shoot a lot of landscapes, you might as well get the 18-50 (ish) from Tamron that's almost the same thing as the 28-75 but different focal lengths. The 28-75 is really good on a full frame sensor, but on the crop sensor it goes from slightly wider than 'normal' (45mm), to medium telephoto (120mm).
It's good for tight portraits and stuff like that, and I like it for events where you have to sit/stand kind of far away from the speaker or performer or whatever, since it lets you zoom out and get a partial crowd shot or zoom in and get a close up of the person up front. It's really good for macros also, if you don't need to focus way close on tiny things like a dedicated macro lens would. |
|
|
|
08/03/2006 11:57:37 PM · #3 |
thanks for the info! I'm planning on getting the 50 1.8 too....just because it's so cheap and seems everyone has one.
Message edited by author 2006-08-03 23:59:05. |
|
|
|
08/04/2006 12:01:06 AM · #4 |
I'm pretty sure that the 28-75 is parfocal (keeps focus even while zooming).
So is the Tamron 24-135, even though it has a variable aperture range.
Definitely worth a check due to it's range. Those 4mm wider is really useful.
Not sure about the 28-105 by Canon.
I'd probably either go for the 24-135 or the 17-50 f/2.8 by Tamron personally as those ranges appeal to me more. (actually, I will be going for the f/2.8 lens)
make sure you stop that 50mm lens down. It's trash wide open IMHO. Starts getting a lot better at f/3.5, but doesn't really come into it's own until around f/5.6 or so... I've gone through three of them now.
Message edited by author 2006-08-04 00:02:07. |
|
|
|
08/04/2006 12:03:46 AM · #5 |
Love my Tamron. I'm very happy with it. I reviewed a lot of lenses prior to buying the Tamron and I'm sure I looked at that Canon and found the reviews to be less positive. Is that Canon the IS version?
|
|
|
|
08/04/2006 12:28:54 AM · #6 |
The IS version is the 24-105 f/4L.
It's a fair bit more money...
A friend of mine uses the 28-105 and he really likes it.
I'd just rather have the extra range of the 24-135 if it were me. |
|
|
|
08/04/2006 12:45:18 AM · #7 |
I have the tamron 24-135 3.5-5.6 SP lens - great lens, i (and many others) highly recomend it. About $400.
The 28-75 is a 2.8 lens and while that's great, IMO it's not a good walking around lens. 28 is not wide enough on a 1.6 crop camera and 75 is halfway to where you want to go. it's a great range for film or a 5D though.
Look at the sigma 18-50 2.8 EX or tamron 17-50 2.8, both around $400. You'll want more reach at times though (i have the sigma and wanted more reach).
You can get the sigma 70-200 2.8 (or canon 70-200 2.8, 2.8 IS or F4) and have a great lens - the gap of 50 to 70mm is not noticed. You have to carry two lenses and swap them at times though.
You need/use different lenses for different things. i use my tamron 70-210 2.8 for portraits, weddings, and anything telephoto oriented (not much really in that area for me, i'm not a wildlife shooter). The 18-50 2.8 is great indoors, low light, museums, landscapes, etc.
the tamron 24-135 is a great walkaround and studio lens, and does decent macro work too and is a great night shot lens as you can zoom in and focus and zoom out and the focus stays the same.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2006 01:33:58 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
make sure you stop that 50mm lens down. It's trash wide open IMHO. Starts getting a lot better at f/3.5, but doesn't really come into it's own until around f/5.6 or so... I've gone through three of them now. |
That's pretty weird. I usually shoot mine wide open and I've had pretty good results... I do get a little CA sometimes, but not a lot. The focus switch on mine was sketchy when it was new, but optically it seems fine. |
|
|
|
08/04/2006 04:13:23 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
Originally posted by eschelar:
make sure you stop that 50mm lens down. It's trash wide open IMHO. Starts getting a lot better at f/3.5, but doesn't really come into it's own until around f/5.6 or so... I've gone through three of them now. |
That's pretty weird. I usually shoot mine wide open and I've had pretty good results... I do get a little CA sometimes, but not a lot. The focus switch on mine was sketchy when it was new, but optically it seems fine. |
Yeah, 50mm f1.8's pretty damn sharp wide open, the bokeh's not as nice and it's not quite as sharp wide open as the 85 f1.8, but it is pretty damn sharp. |
|
|
|
08/04/2006 09:18:22 AM · #10 |
I've had the 28-105, the Tamron 24-135, and the 28-75. I finally settled on the 28-75 because of its sharpness and speed. I was very disappointed in the 28-105 when I took pictures of people and saw the eyes were not sharp. It's sharpness was not very good (I had 2). I was similarly disappointed with the 24-135 as it wasn't nearly as sharp as th 28-75 I was comparing it to. I also tried two copies of this lens since I really wanted to like it for its range. The 28-75 is just an amazing lens and blows everything of similar price away.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2006 10:50:27 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I have the tamron 24-135 3.5-5.6 SP lens - great lens, i (and many others) highly recomend it. About $400.
The 28-75 is a 2.8 lens and while that's great, IMO it's not a good walking around lens. 28 is not wide enough on a 1.6 crop camera and 75 is halfway to where you want to go. it's a great range for film or a 5D though. |
The 2.8, which you probably don't have, is a fantastic walk around lens. Not wide enough? On a walk around? Interesting.
And 75 is fine for a walk around...its actually a standard walk around range.
And no, it isn't great for a film camera or a 5d because it won't fit on those cameras. |
|
|
|
08/04/2006 10:57:54 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by specialk0783:
And no, it isn't great for a film camera or a 5d because it won't fit on those cameras. |
The above is not correct. The Tammy will cover full-frame sensors or film:
The Tamron SP AF28-75/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro is a Tamron "Di" lens. Di lenses designed with digital SLRs in mind and Tamron say that they have higher resolution, better control of flare and ghosting, less light fall-off and lower chromatic aberration than earlier designs.
Note that the Tamron SP AF28-75/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro has full frame 35mm coverage. Just because it's designated as a "Di" (digitally optimized) lens doesn't mean that it has reduced frame coverage like, for example, the Canon EF-S series lenses. You can use this lens on an APS-C sensor SLR (e.g. Canon EOS 20D) or on a full frame 35mm film body.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2006 11:30:31 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by specialk0783:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
28 is not wide enough on a 1.6 crop camera and 75 is halfway to where you want to go. |
Not wide enough? On a walk around? Interesting. |
The Tamron 28-75 would function as an apparent 45-120mm lens on a Digitial Rebel or 20D/30D. Not very wide at all. |
|
|
|
08/04/2006 11:34:16 AM · #14 |
| Tamron 28-75 hands down. This is probably one of the best deals for performance, right after the Canon 50mm f1.8 |
|
|
|
08/04/2006 08:26:05 PM · #15 |
The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 will not fit on a Full frame. It is designed for an APS-C sensor size to be the equivalent of the 28-75 on a full-frame for range.
Those who want a bit more range can also look at the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-5.6. I heard that it's very, very sharp and delivers similar range to a 28-105.
Maybe Canon sells a different 50mm lens here in Asia (I don't really believe so), but having used 3 of them, I find that they all perform roughly the same and give me consistently badly focused shots. I was told by Canon Service that the lens wasn't very good performance wise and that I should try a 50mm f/1.4. It has the same workings as an 85mm f/1.8 (USM motor) and apparently performs very well. I had little trouble getting the 85mm f/1.8 to perform well for me.
Yes, it's sharp, but if it can't focus properly, you will get soft results.
I shoot at f/3.5 or smaller because I'm fed up of the issue. I do not get the same issues with my 80-200 f/2.8.
The 50 f/1.4 is on the list for the end of this month.
Message edited by author 2006-08-04 20:26:47. |
|
|
|
08/04/2006 11:54:49 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 will not fit on a Full frame. It is designed for an APS-C sensor size to be the equivalent of the 28-75 on a full-frame for range. |
Exactly...thank you!
Message edited by author 2006-08-04 23:55:06. |
|
|
|
08/04/2006 11:56:30 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by specialk0783:
[quote=eschelar] The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 will not fit on a Full frame. It is designed for an APS-C sensor size to be the equivalent of the 28-75 on a full-frame for range. |
Exactly...thank you! I just read an article on all the Tamron Di lenses and I believe the article said that they are all designed for APS-C sensor size. Thats the point of them. |
|
|
|
08/05/2006 12:13:07 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by specialk0783:
Exactly...thank you! I just read an article on all the Tamron Di lenses and I believe the article said that they are all designed for APS-C sensor size. Thats the point of them. |
Di means "optimized for digital"; the 28-75 cobvers full-frame sensors, as quoted earlier.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2006 01:06:26 AM · #19 |
| The 28-75 on film is sweet. It definitely works - the 17-50 probably has some other designation that means it only works on crop sensors. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/02/2026 05:36:39 PM EST.
