Lens Question: Tamron 28-75 vs. Can. 17-85 IS

11/03/2008 05:51:12 PM · #1

Which would you pick if you had the choice? Thanks!

smurfguy

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

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

11/03/2008 05:56:30 PM · #2

I haven't used either, but having read a lot about the Tamron, I can assume that it will overwhelmingly be the favorite.

The max constant aperture of 2.8 over 4-5.6 gives you a faster focus, brighter viewfinder, and a sharper image. At f/4, the Canon will be wide open and therefore possibly soft, while the Tamron will be stopped down a bit and all the sharper for it.

While the Canon has IS, I would say that IS is less important in the 17-85 range than on longer lenses.

ETA: Unfortunately losing the 17-28 range is rough. Right now 24 is my widest, and on my crop camera, I wish I had wider.

Message edited by author 2008-11-03 17:59:13.

ganders

Canon EOS-40D

11/03/2008 05:58:55 PM · #3

Depends what you want it for. The Canon obviously has a huge edge at the wide end (17 is a LOT wider than 28); on the other hand, the Tamron is incredibly sharp for the price, and the straight 2.8 is very handy.

11/03/2008 06:00:29 PM · #4

Well, I'm looking at some used 30D packages locally and if I did the one I'm looking at it comes with the 17-85 IS. If I did that I'd have to sell my Tammy 28-75. The little extra reach and wideness appeal to me as I sold the kit lens.

11/03/2008 06:23:17 PM · #5

Not to mention if I did the deal with the 17-85 IS I could break close to even if I sold the Tammy. How does the 17-85 IS handle in portraits?

11/03/2008 06:34:01 PM · #6

Ooo, I'm tempted guys. Tell me if there's any reason I shouldn't go for the Canon 17-85. If I did this deal I would have a Canon 30D, Canon f1.8 50mm MKII, and the Canon 17-85 IS, Canon Speedlite 430 EX.

My primary concern is outdoor portraiture if that makes any difference (I end up using the 50mm about 90% of the time any way).

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/03/2008 08:06:59 PM · #7

Anyone?

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

11/03/2008 08:16:19 PM · #8

Originally posted by goinskiing:

How does the 17-85 IS handle in portraits?

It doesn't matter if you already have a 50mm f/1.8 for portraits and low light. For general shooting (especially outdoors), you'll probably get more use from the wider range of the 17-85.

Mephisto

Nikon Coolpix A

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

11/03/2008 08:17:38 PM · #9

Originally posted by goinskiing:

I end up using the 50mm about 90% of the time any way.

if that's the case you should be fine off with this package without the 28-75. sounds like a great package to me (if the price is right) and i think if you're really looking into outdoor portraiture a 50 1.8 is far better than a f2.8 zoom imo.
the tammi is a great lens and it was the first i bought more than 2 years ago, but i'm mostly using it for studio work and my 85 1.8 for outdoor portraiture.
and i think the 17-85 has more value as a all-around or walk-around lens than the tammi especially it's a whole lot wider than the tammi while your 50mm prime will cover your need for a good portrait lens.

eta: scalvert beat me to it, but you get the idea ;)

Message edited by author 2008-11-03 20:21:47.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/03/2008 08:20:13 PM · #10

Thanks guys, that's all I needed to hear.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

11/03/2008 08:33:42 PM · #11

FWIW, I have all three of those lenses. The Tamron was my go-to walkaround lens because I also had dedicated wide angle and telephoto glass for use outside of that range. I used the 50mm for available light portraits, and the 17-85 when I needed to travel light or minimize lens changes. The stabilization makes it handy for motion panning, too. The Tamron is sharper, but it doesn't focus as quickly as the 17-85 and obviously doesn't have nearly the range.

pianomom

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

11/04/2008 08:57:08 AM · #12

I have both lenses also. I like the wide angle of the Canon 17-85 & IS & wish the Tammy was wider, however, the Tam. 28-75 does much better in low light conditions and the color with it is beautiful. I have found that I use the Tam. much more.

bobonacus

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

11/04/2008 09:42:52 AM · #13

Originally posted by scalvert:

The stabilization makes it handy for motion panning, too.

The 17-85 doesn't have the same "option 2" stabilization that the longer zoom lenses have and can give very odd results if you try and pan with IS on :)

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/04/2008 10:11:02 AM · #14

Originally posted by bobonacus:

Originally posted by scalvert:
The stabilization makes it handy for motion panning, too.

The 17-85 doesn't have the same "option 2" stabilization that the longer zoom lenses have and can give very odd results if you try and pan with IS on :)

I guess what I worry about with the 17-85 IS is it being fast enough and I also worry about DOF being narrow enough for portraits with f-stops of 4-5.6 even at 85mm, that's what I've loved about the Tammy. Though, i do find in lower light situations that I do generally pull out the plastic fantastic. I have most been using the Tammy for my walk-around lens, but wish it had a little wider than 28 and a little longer than 75. It's kind of tough. My wife said I need to sell one of the lenses to help with the overall cost, unless there's another lens out there for 350 should be looking at.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

11/04/2008 10:11:15 AM · #15

Originally posted by bobonacus:

There may be better stabilization options, but in my experience the 17-85 does a fine job with motion panning. ;-)

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

11/04/2008 10:19:14 AM · #16

Maybe I could find a way to get the 70-200 F4.0L by selling both and then find another cheap kit lens for walking around around Christmas-time. It's just kind of tight financially so, if you have any suggestions other than what I posted earlier I am open to them.

bobonacus

Canon EOS-7D

11/04/2008 10:55:06 AM · #17

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by bobonacus:

Originally posted by scalvert:
The stabilization makes it handy for motion panning, too.

The 17-85 doesn't have the same "option 2" stabilization that the longer zoom lenses have and can give very odd results if you try and pan with IS on :)

There may be better stabilization options, but in my experience the 17-85 does a fine job with motion panning. ;-)

Cool, they look good. I deleted the ones I took from a rally, the lens was not happy as I had motion panning from the corners to the centre with a sharp car in the middle of the shot, very weird effect :) Though with the 70-300 on IS 2 @ 70mm the panning was fine