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

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> every day lens opinion? Tamron 28-75?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 24 of 24, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/05/2007 11:41:44 AM · #1
I need a few opinions for an every day lens. I have a 20D and I am using a canon 28-70 1:2.8-4 DG. The range is about right but I would like a better quality lens and I'm not going to complain about more zoom or larger aperture. I shoot mostly outdoors without a flash or tripod, and sometimes I am a little short on light.

I have been thinking about the Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF). What do you all think?
12/05/2007 11:43:53 AM · #2
It's a good lens, but I'd prefer the 17-50.
12/05/2007 12:18:29 PM · #3
I have that lens and LOVE it ... it's the default lens on my camera ... focus is fast and it's tack sharp ...

edit to say that I'm referring to the 28-75 ... looking at my profile, you'll see that I don't own the 17-50

Message edited by author 2007-12-05 12:46:11.
12/05/2007 12:41:56 PM · #4

I am looking at the Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF]

Had some good reviews and a good price to in the uk HERE

I am seriously thinking of getting the 17 - 50 as nobody has a bad word about it really.

Message edited by author 2007-12-05 12:45:43.
12/05/2007 12:51:18 PM · #5
Sounds like all good reports on it. I think that is what I want.
12/05/2007 12:56:08 PM · #6
I have the 28-75 and it is great lens for the money. You've already said that the zoom range of the lens is good for your needs, so you'd have to decide if you wanted to go wider or not. The 17-50 Tamron is reportedly very nice too, if you want to go wider. I am waiting for my mailman to drop off my new Canon 24-70L right now....I ended up deciding to get the Canon because of the faster focusing, build, weathersealing, and IQ (slight edge over the Tamron 28-75 from what I've seen/read), that said if your budget doesn't allow Canon L, then the Tamron is a very good option. It is also a lot lighter than the Canon version.
12/05/2007 01:04:04 PM · #7
That was the other lens I was looking at, just not sure if it is worth the price difference. I really like the USM though, and I know it would be better quality. What made you upgrade?
12/05/2007 01:11:57 PM · #8
The Canon 24-70L is a better lens than the Tamron 28-75mm. Optically it's a little bit better, and the build quality, the sealing, the speed of focus, all are better. Is it worth the price difference? I decided not, and I am happy with my Tamron. If I had more funds available at the time I'd have gotten the 24-70 though...

R.

Message edited by author 2007-12-05 13:35:49.
12/05/2007 02:36:08 PM · #9
Have you compared the lenses you are interested in on this site? Gives you an idea of image quality if nothing else
12/05/2007 02:42:13 PM · #10
well, the 24-70 just came! But it was freezing cold out and it's all steamed up so can't really try it out yet. I'll be able to give a more fair comparison in a few days.
12/05/2007 03:32:54 PM · #11
Im currently thinking of the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG, its had some decent reviews and my budget is uber tight right now...

-dave
12/05/2007 03:37:46 PM · #12
I'm getting mine (Tamron 28-75) today in the mail, woohoo!!!
12/05/2007 05:00:54 PM · #13
I got the Tamron 17-50 2.8 about 6 months ago and I think i's great. I had the option of that or the 17-40mm F4 L thing, which I tried but didn't buy because it's a lot slower , heavier and doesn't seem as sharp unless you step it down to about F6.5. The Tamron is kickass at F4 and F4.5.

Having said that, I'm interested in getting a 5d in a couple of months so i'll have to part with a lot of my stuff.

In the interest of hijacking: has anyone used the Tamron 28-75mm on a full frame camera? Opinions?
12/05/2007 05:37:01 PM · #14
I have the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and have zero complaints about it. Great lens for the price.

I did a review a few months back here.
12/05/2007 05:45:18 PM · #15
It looks like the responses are pretty much between the 28-75 and 17-50.

So, I'll add this:

If you like shooting landscapes or if you find yourself shooting in close quarters often(such as indoor parties), you'll love the wideness of the 17-50.

However, if you are outdoors a lot, snapping around, or like doing portraits, the 28-75 is the lens for you.

There's more to it ofcourse, I just recommend you evaluate your shooting style and needs before making the choice. In the end, you may end up with both, but one will likely spend more time on your camera than the other as your everyday lens. For me for example, the 28mm f/2.8 lives on my camera, because I love its "normalness" :-)
12/06/2007 09:39:57 AM · #16
Depending on how much you want to spend, take a look at the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM or the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS.

The IS on the 18-55 is supposed to give you four stops, so it may be better than an f/2.8 without IS, and will give you better DOF (important if you have a toddler running around). Also, this lens does not have USM.

The 17-55 is a better lens becasue it is f/2.8, has USM, has a better build quality, and may be sharper than the 18-55 at the same aperture. But both lenses are supposed to be very sharp.
12/06/2007 10:09:36 AM · #17
I just got my 28-75 yesterday and I LOVE it already! It feels like I finally have a REAL lens now. The pictures I have taken so far have been wonderful and I love the range on it. It has a good feel and is honestly a lot of fun.
12/06/2007 10:30:45 AM · #18
Originally posted by hankk:

Depending on how much you want to spend, take a look at the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM or the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS.

The IS on the 18-55 is supposed to give you four stops, so it may be better than an f/2.8 without IS, and will give you better DOF (important if you have a toddler running around). Also, this lens does not have USM.

The 17-55 is a better lens becasue it is f/2.8, has USM, has a better build quality, and may be sharper than the 18-55 at the same aperture. But both lenses are supposed to be very sharp.


The 17-55 IS USM 2.8 is also £660... the Tamron is £200 maybe on a good day?
12/06/2007 10:40:38 AM · #19
i've only been using this lens for studio work recently, but what's the point of having a fast lens in a studio? that said, i think i'm going to trade it for the sigma 30 f1.4HSM, which i can use for concert and low light photography a lot better than the tammi...
anyone interested in buying mine? i'm located in germany though...:)

(despite that i can really recommend it for anyone who has the purpose of using it as an "allround" or street lens, it's really sharp with no limitations)

ETA: eeer, i just noticed that i'm the first nokonian posting in this forum...*runs and hides* ;)))

Message edited by author 2007-12-06 10:42:45.
12/06/2007 10:49:14 AM · #20
Originally posted by Mephisto:

eeer, i just noticed that i'm the first nokonian posting in this forum...*runs and hides* ;)))


Doesn't matter, still the same lens. As for the rationale behind f/2.8 in the studio, that would be DOF; in the studio you have the ability to control DOF very precisely by opening up the aperture. Not only that, but lenses typically are at their sharpest when stopped down a couple stops from max. This means, all other things being equal, and f/2.8 lens at f/5.6 will be sharper than and f/3.5 lens at f/5.6...

R.
12/06/2007 10:58:42 AM · #21
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Mephisto:

eeer, i just noticed that i'm the first nokonian posting in this forum...*runs and hides* ;)))


Doesn't matter, still the same lens. As for the rationale behind f/2.8 in the studio, that would be DOF; in the studio you have the ability to control DOF very precisely by opening up the aperture. Not only that, but lenses typically are at their sharpest when stopped down a couple stops from max. This means, all other things being equal, and f/2.8 lens at f/5.6 will be sharper than and f/3.5 lens at f/5.6...

R.


well, actually you're right about controlling dof in a studio, the only thing is, that i have to stop down to f8 or even f16 most of the time, because i'm using an external flash (metz 36AF) in combination with my studio strobe. i usally try to balance both to get even lighting, the problem is that i can't scale down the external flash, so i have to expose for that one and adjust the studio strobe to fit the external one, which is mostly @ 1/2 or 3/4 of the full power, which is still f11 mostly...(i hope you understand what i mean, my english sucks at these kind of explanations...;D)
so no need for a fast lens in that case...:(
12/06/2007 11:34:58 AM · #22
Originally posted by Mephisto:

well, actually you're right about controlling dof in a studio, the only thing is, that i have to stop down to f8 or even f16 most of the time, because i'm using an external flash (metz 36AF) in combination with my studio strobe. i usally try to balance both to get even lighting, the problem is that i can't scale down the external flash, so i have to expose for that one and adjust the studio strobe to fit the external one, which is mostly @ 1/2 or 3/4 of the full power, which is still f11 mostly...(i hope you understand what i mean, my english sucks at these kind of explanations...;D)
so no need for a fast lens in that case...:(


Yup, I understand what you are saying; you can't set your Metz unit for less than full power, so you have to work at small apertures. This, of course, means you are unable to get the full benefit of the extreme versatility of working in a studio setup. Obviously, you need to get another, scalable-output light source as soon as possible :-)

R.
12/06/2007 11:42:47 AM · #23
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Mephisto:

well, actually you're right about controlling dof in a studio, the only thing is, that i have to stop down to f8 or even f16 most of the time, because i'm using an external flash (metz 36AF) in combination with my studio strobe. i usally try to balance both to get even lighting, the problem is that i can't scale down the external flash, so i have to expose for that one and adjust the studio strobe to fit the external one, which is mostly @ 1/2 or 3/4 of the full power, which is still f11 mostly...(i hope you understand what i mean, my english sucks at these kind of explanations...;D)
so no need for a fast lens in that case...:(


Yup, I understand what you are saying; you can't set your Metz unit for less than full power, so you have to work at small apertures. This, of course, means you are unable to get the full benefit of the extreme versatility of working in a studio setup. Obviously, you need to get another, scalable-output light source as soon as possible :-)

R.

Would a scrim or white umbrella help? Or just use a few ND filters :)
12/06/2007 11:54:57 AM · #24
Originally posted by Tez:

Originally posted by hankk:

Depending on how much you want to spend, take a look at the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM or the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS.

The IS on the 18-55 is supposed to give you four stops, so it may be better than an f/2.8 without IS, and will give you better DOF (important if you have a toddler running around). Also, this lens does not have USM.

The 17-55 is a better lens becasue it is f/2.8, has USM, has a better build quality, and may be sharper than the 18-55 at the same aperture. But both lenses are supposed to be very sharp.


The 17-55 IS USM 2.8 is also £660... the Tamron is £200 maybe on a good day?

At B&H, the 17-55 IS is $999, less a $70 instant rebate. The 18-55 IS $174. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is $445, less a $25 mail in rebate.

The reviews seem to say that all three are good lenses, but the 18-55 is new.

Does the OP want IS or f/2.8? Will you be shooting at apertures wider than f/3.5-5.6? And what else could you buy with the money you save by buying a less expensive lens? (like a 70-200 f/4 @ $539)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 08:10:41 AM

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 © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 08:10:41 AM EDT.