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

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Tamron 17-50 2.8 or 28-75 2.8????
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 26, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/15/2007 07:36:32 PM · #1
OK, I'm getting the itch for faster glass and don't know that I want to spend the big bucks on the canon stuff when there are great reviews on the above two lenses.

I want this as a walk around lens and the 2.8 allows me to take a more creative shot at 70mm than my canon 17-85 is usm will allow. It also means I'm carrying a great portrait lens as well because of the 2.8 factor.

I'm leaning towards the 28-75 as I feel this would be a better walkaround. I have a canon 10-22 for wide angle if I need it so would the gap create a big problem.

I understand the Tamron 17-50 is great but it's a bit short for my liking.

How sharp are they at 2.8?

I would have the following covered:

Canon 10-22
Tamron 28-75
Canon 70-200

I also have a canon 60macro and the nifty 50 1.8

Would love to know your thoughts on this.

Thanks so much.

12/15/2007 08:02:14 PM · #2
link this might help?
12/15/2007 08:15:55 PM · #3
Hi Rider, Thanks

I have read up on the lenses. They are both spoken of highly in reviews. I'm just after some hands on thoughts and comments from people who own them.
12/15/2007 08:32:23 PM · #4
I have experience with both lenses, one of the teachers at my school owns the 17-50, and it is as good if not better than my 28-75. They both produce amazing images, certainly equal to their more expensive counterparts for all intents and purposes. However, in the end, I chose the 28-75 for the range it offered, it's an all day walk around lens.

They both have great autofocus, reasonable build and are really easy to use as well.

At f2.8 they are also both on about a far in my experience, although as with most lenses stopping down really makes these two shine. Having said that, f2.8 images from both are easily usable.

Personally, since I bought it, the 28-75 has been on my D200 most of the time, it's a really handy, good quality lens.
12/16/2007 08:24:34 AM · #5
i use my 28-75 for gigs, but for xmas i am getting a 17-50 for wider shots as i find 28 isn't quite wide enough for some venues..
12/16/2007 08:31:54 AM · #6
I have the Tammy 28-75 ... it stays on my camera as my main lens ... it's tack sharp and pretty darn fast ... I would highly recommend the 28-75 ...
12/16/2007 08:53:58 AM · #7
Maria,

I have the lenses you're discussing (except mine's the 17-35mm Tamron)

Since buying my 10-22 in August and ALSO the Canon 100mm 2.8 I have to say neither of the Tamrons have made it onto my camera.

I am SO SURPRISED by how much the 10-22 & 100mm cover EVERYTHING for me.

The 100mm is the one I use for walking around - it's awesome for portraits and distance, but also beautiful Macro.

I can usually be found with the 100mm on my camera and the 10-22in a small carry bag on my shoulder - I'm set!

Thought you might like another perspective - SMILE!

Lisa
12/16/2007 12:37:35 PM · #8
I have had the 28-75 for a few years now, and love it. But that said, it isn't quite wide enough, especially for portraits in cramped spaces. I'll be adding the 17-50 to my collection after Xmas, and rather suspect that it will end up getting more use, at least with my shooting style.
12/16/2007 02:07:59 PM · #9
I have the 17-50 f2.8 i was sceptical at first about using third party lenses but after reading review after review which was nothing but good i ordered one. I was very impressed with it sharp fast pin sharp results, the only down side is no usm and is a little noisy but well worth the money. This has fast become the lens i always use, its on my camera all the time.
12/16/2007 09:40:28 PM · #10
28-75 is great.... This lens is on the cam for at least 75% of the time.
12/17/2007 04:23:39 AM · #11
Thanks for all the replies guys.

I was looking at the 28-75 2.8 to replace my 17-85. Really like the idea of 2.8 all the way through the range. So much faster than 5.6 when zooming.

Would everyone agree that this would be a better lens than the 17-85?
12/17/2007 04:38:15 AM · #12
.oops.

Message edited by author 2007-12-17 04:38:31.
12/17/2007 12:30:20 PM · #13
Well its a better lens you just have to remember the crop factor as the Canon EOS-30D has a aps-c sensor so i think tamron lenses are around 1.55x giving you 43.4 - 116.25mm focal range when compared to the normal 35mm format. I am sure someone here will correct me if i am, wromg! The 17 - 50 tamron gives you a 26.35mm - 77.5mm equivealent. Depends on you photographic needs which range suits you best.

:-)
12/17/2007 12:59:31 PM · #14
Wonder if I can find someone willing to trade a 17-50mm for my 28-75mm

New price they are about $70 different from each other. hmmmmmmmmm.
12/17/2007 01:14:48 PM · #15
actually canon's crop factor is 1.6x
12/17/2007 01:34:13 PM · #16
yes canons crop factor is 1.6 but i think Tamron differs slightly hence the 1.55 according to something i read
12/17/2007 02:34:17 PM · #17
//www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=5&article_id=1861
12/17/2007 02:43:51 PM · #18
Originally posted by CLiPPeR:

I have the 17-50 f2.8 i was sceptical at first about using third party lenses but after reading review after review which was nothing but good i ordered one. I was very impressed with it sharp fast pin sharp results, the only down side is no usm and is a little noisy but well worth the money. This has fast become the lens i always use, its on my camera all the time.


I have been thinlking about getting the Nikon 17-50 f2.8, but it is $1200, so that I am still deciding. How big is the difference between Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and Nikon 17-50 f2.8, do you know? Anyone else had experience with both?
12/17/2007 05:10:47 PM · #19
well apparently the tamron is very close in sharpness to the Canon 17-50 IS, the only thing it lacks is silent focus and can have trouble with focus in low light conditions..
12/17/2007 05:38:43 PM · #20
Originally posted by Bobster:

well apparently the tamron is very close in sharpness to the Canon 17-50 IS, the only thing it lacks is silent focus and can have trouble with focus in low light conditions..


Try this site for lens comparisons it may help.
12/17/2007 05:49:35 PM · #21
Hi
I am in the almost same situation. I just board a Canon 40D coming with a 17-85 mm. lens. Should i trade the canon lens for the Tamron 17-50? The Tamron gets really good reviews compared to the Canon 17-85? What would you do?

Best regards,
Thomas Jessen
Denmark
12/17/2007 07:35:59 PM · #22
Originally posted by zbill1:

I have been thinlking about getting the Nikon 17-50 f2.8, but it is $1200, so that I am still deciding. How big is the difference between Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and Nikon 17-50 f2.8, do you know? Anyone else had experience with both?


No experience with either but I can tell you that the Nikon 17-55 2.8 is about $750 more than the Tamron. My bet is you would be comparing apples to oranges.
12/17/2007 08:04:15 PM · #23
Both tamrons are sharp and fine lenses. Compared to the canon's you have you'll notice a few things:

focus noise will be more on the tamrons (IMO who cares)
focus will be slower on the tamrons (in my experience I do miss shots with the slower focus compared to USM on canon lenses. Even in the studio!).
you won't have IS like you do now on the 17-85. Yeah, the tamron's are faster lenses so it may be a mostly a wash.
color may be different - my tamron 70-210 2.8 had a VERY different opinion on what shade yellow was compared to my canon 70-200 2.8 IS. Different optic glass, coatings, etc. May or may not be an issue for you.
manual focus - to get that on the tamrons means flipping a switch on the lens, as opposed to canon's USM where MF is always 'on'. Again, it may not be an issue for you.
The direction the zoom barrel turns is backwards to the way Canon's turn (at least the 17-50 is from what i've heard). Annoying if nothing else.

As to the focal lenght dilemma...I don't have a solution for you. Shooting mostly inside? Get the 17-50. Outside (or large venues)? Get the 28-75. Since you have the 10-22 the longer one may be the better choice.
12/17/2007 08:29:43 PM · #24
Originally posted by jbsmithana:

Originally posted by zbill1:

I have been thinlking about getting the Nikon 17-50 f2.8, but it is $1200, so that I am still deciding. How big is the difference between Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and Nikon 17-50 f2.8, do you know? Anyone else had experience with both?


No experience with either but I can tell you that the Nikon 17-55 2.8 is about $750 more than the Tamron. My bet is you would be comparing apples to oranges.


Sorry, I meant to say Zoom Super Wide Angle AF 17-55mm f/2.8G Nikkor

//www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300490-USA/Nikon_2147_17_55mm_f_2_8G_ED_IF_AF_S.html

Why am I comparing apples to oranges? Does the Zoom Super Wide Angle SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II come close as far as feature and photo quality?

12/17/2007 08:42:27 PM · #25
Originally posted by zbill1:

Originally posted by jbsmithana:

No experience with either but I can tell you that the Nikon 17-55 2.8 is about $750 more than the Tamron. My bet is you would be comparing apples to oranges.


Sorry, I meant to say Zoom Super Wide Angle AF 17-55mm f/2.8G Nikkor

//www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300490-USA/Nikon_2147_17_55mm_f_2_8G_ED_IF_AF_S.html

Why am I comparing apples to oranges? Does the Zoom Super Wide Angle SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II come close as far as feature and photo quality?


I have owned Tamron lenses before and have found that they do not compare to Nikon glass. This is even more so when we are talking the pro level Nikon lenses. So when I say apples and oranges I mean it is unlikely that a $450 lens is going to come close to a $1200 lens. The quality of the lens elements just will not be the same. This willshow in sharpness and color richness.

Message edited by author 2007-12-17 20:43:41.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 12/04/2020 11:55:22 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 12/04/2020 11:55:22 PM EST.