DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> I'm torn between two lenses and I need some help
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 14 of 14, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/28/2006 05:44:50 PM · #1
Tamron SP AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

and

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

Are they basically the same except for the ranges? This lens will go on the 20D.

I basically want a good versatile lens. If I want to do a portrait, I can... If I want to do a landscape, I can.. and if I want to take some candid shots... I can..

Keep in mind, I LOVE SHARPNESS.. I can get enough of the crisp photo love..

So, the lens gurus: which is better for me??

Edit: And what do the titles mean?? SP, XR, Di yada yada

Message edited by author 2006-12-28 17:45:24.
 12/28/2006 05:48:09 PM · #2
Oh, and my budget it $350
 12/28/2006 05:48:52 PM · #3
Don´t have a clue on the titles, have never owned a Tamron but I personally would go for the 28-75, I have heard good things and I hate lenses that don´t have the same constant aperture, the 17-35 is "only" f4 at the long end.

However, that statement "are they basically the same except for the ranges" is a pretty huge one. Because of the range, they are two very different lenses so it really comes down to what you want, a wide lens or a normal lens? Also, keep in mind that unless you have a full frame camera, the crop factor is 1.6x on Canon cameras.
 12/28/2006 05:55:54 PM · #4
Should add that normally I would suggest getting BOTH lenses as they are so different from each other and you do so different things with them. The 28-75 is probably better for you to start with though, my first lens was a 24-85 Canon and it was my only one for the first 2-3 months before getting a second lens as I needed that time (and in retrospect, I should have taken an even longer time but I am not the most patient of people) to fully realize what I wanted from lenses.
 12/28/2006 05:56:03 PM · #5
Here are the explanations for the yadda yadda yadda part.
Here are some shots using the 28-75.
Here are some shots using the 17-35.
Just remember you won't be able to open to 2.8 at the long end with the 17-35.

Added: I have the 28-75 and love it. Even more so for the price...about $350.

Message edited by author 2006-12-28 17:57:16.
 12/28/2006 06:07:29 PM · #6
Don't you need a camera first?

("[No Camera -- Vote Only]")



:)
 12/28/2006 06:33:47 PM · #7
Originally posted by Nobody:
Don't you need a camera first?

("[No Camera -- Vote Only]")



:)

LMAO....just snapped off these 2 shots with my 28-75. It's still coming down pretty hard. Maybe more tomorrow or Saturday.

12/28/2006 07:05:07 PM · #8
Here's my $.02

If I were going to drop money for a lens, I'd want the most versitility I could have. 28-75 is a good range, the constant F/2.8 would allow for a lot of range in shooting environments. On the other hand, the 17-35 only givs you 18mm of range, with a non-constant F-stop...that seems kind of pathetic, to be honest. Now I haven't used the lens, and imagine that it is probably a good piece of glass - but it's VERY limited in it's application.

I have the Tammy 28-75 and absolutely love it. It's great as a walk-around lens, great for portraits. Now for landscapes, it really isn't wide enough, but it's not totally awful, either. That's the only place where I can see the 17-35 having an edge over it.

I know you said $350 as a budget, but let me suggest the Tamron 17-50 as an alternative to consider. It is also a constant F/2.8 lens, but it's a bit more expensive (I think runs about $450). But it would have a better landscape functionality, while retaining the better characteristics of the 28-75; mainly the longer range, constant F-stop, and ability to do portrait or landscape work.
 12/28/2006 07:19:31 PM · #9
Originally posted by jfriesen:
Edit: And what do the titles mean?? SP, XR, Di yada yada


I don't know if this has been said yet or not but...

SP: Tamron's pro line, similar to Canon L, Sigma EX, etc

XR: Extra refractive (I think?), means the lenses refract the light more than normal. The lens can therefore be made more compact, hence why it's a LOT smaller than the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L.

Di: Digitally optimized, means the lens elements are specially coated to perform well with a digital sensor. This does not, however, mean that this lens is a digital ONLY lens. It can be used with film EF mount cameras.

Oh and by the way, go with the 28-75. You won't be disappointed.

12/28/2006 07:29:08 PM · #10
Go for the tamron 17-50 f\2.8.
i would miss the wide angle if i only had one lens. and the 17-35 isnt fast enough for my taste.
i would go for an extra lens too if you do alot of portraits. maybe a fast 85mm or a tamron 90mm
12/28/2006 08:21:27 PM · #11
You need to really think about the range of each. I have the 28-75 on a 20D and I think it's great BUT I tend to be a longer fan unless I go short and then I use the 10-22. Others love the range of the 17-ish to 40-ish rather than breaking into 2 lenses.

Edit: The 28-75 is pretty sharp BUT if you want sharp you need to look at primes :-)

Message edited by author 2006-12-28 20:22:04.
 12/28/2006 08:30:58 PM · #12
Originally posted by robs:
Edit: The 28-75 is pretty sharp BUT if you want sharp you need to look at primes :-)


(If memory serves me correct)
One review I read compared the 28-75mm to the Canon 50mm f/1.8 (along with several other lenses). With the 28-75mm set to 50mm, it was nearly as sharp as the 50mm, with just a hint more purple fringing. And by f/4 I think the Tamron was a tad bit sharper. Anyhow, it seemed the the Tamron could replace the 50mm except for the f/1.8. That is damn good for a zoom.

Oh and my vote is for the 28-75mm. I too have been searching and reading about all these lenses and just yesterday got the credit card out and bought one. I paid $335 at Buydig.com.
 12/28/2006 09:16:11 PM · #13
I have the 28-75 and it's a great lens, but 28mm is pretty limiting in doors - not wide enough.
Tamron makes a 17-50 2.8 that is the 'proper' lens for a 1.6 crop camera like your 20D. It's a few dollars more, but worth it if you don't have a wider lens, and it's a constant 2.8 so the extra focus sensors will turn on when you use it, where as the 17-35 2.8-4 won't allow those sensors to activate. You need a 2.8 or wider ap lens.

those sensors improve focusing speed and accuracy, a real plus in low light.
 12/29/2006 12:38:33 AM · #14
Thanks for the replies everyone..

I am asking this because I just sold my Canon 300D w/kit lens and the Sigma 70-300mm DG APO....

I still have the Canon f1.8 50mm II (which I adore)

I think I am going with the 28-75

Thanks again..

Edited for lens error

Message edited by author 2006-12-29 16:48:52.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/02/2026 10:02:01 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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 10:02:01 PM EST.