Tamron 17-50 vs. Tamron 28-75 Hello community, I've got a dilemma on my hands. I'm relatively new to photography (purchased a canon xsi a few months ago along with the "nifty fifty" 50mm f/1.8) and am trying to find a good walk around lens for traveling, hiking, taking photos of friends, etc. I've been reading up on these two lenses (Tamron 17-50 and Tamron 28-75) and can't seem to come up with a verdict. From my understanding, the main difference are their zoom ranges and slightly sharper images on the 17-50. While I like that the 17-50 can take better landscape photos, I also like the higher zoom of the 28-75, arrrgh! Any advice? Much appreciated! Tamron 17-50 vs. Tamron 28-75 Hello community, I've got a dilemma on my hands. I'm relatively new to photography (purchased a canon xsi a few months ago along with the "nifty... » Read More Tamron 17-50 vs. Tamron 28-75 Hello community, I've got a dilemma on my hands. I'm relatively new to photography (purchased a canon xsi a few months ago along with the "nifty fifty" 50mm f/1.8) and am trying to find a good walk around lens for traveling, hiking, taking photos of friends, etc. I've been reading up on these two lenses (Tamron 17-50 and Tamron 28-75) and can't seem to come up with a verdict. From my understanding, the main difference are their zoom ranges and slightly sharper images on the 17-50. While I like that the 17-50 can take better landscape photos, I also like the higher zoom of the 28-75, arrrgh! Any advice? Much appreciated! « Show Less
1272574
To future amateurs with this question i would recommend the 17-50 over the 28-75 especially when your camera has a cropped sensor. It becomes a 28-80mm which makes it an appropriate wide angle to take landscape shots and portraits at 50mm(80mm equivalent). 28-75mm becomes more of a telephoto lens on a cropped dslr and i would only recommend getting it on a full frame (but then again if you can afford a full frame and use it professionally, you would probably go with the cannon 28-75L)
1272575
I have both the Tamron 17-50 and the 28-75 as well as the Tamron 28-300 that I shoot with the Nikon D200. I can't say if I prefer the 17-50 over 28-75 but I love both of them and find I use them both depending on what I'm shooting. If I could afford only 1 lens it would probably be the 28-75 for my type of shooting. If you;'e shooting large groups of people or need the wider angle then I'm sure 17-50 may serve you better.
1272576
Thanks! I ended up getting the 17-50 and actually just got back from a trip to NYC. My pictures turned out really well for the big apple and I am very happy I got the 17-50. Taking wide angle shots of the city was fun because this lens gives you the ability to squeeze in plenty of scenery and play with the angles. I plan on getting an additional lens to cover the longer shots such as those you previous listed.
1272577
For a general walk-around lens on a crop camera like the Rebels or 40D, etc, I find that 28mm is just too limited in terms of wide angle. Not very good for shooting a room full of people either. 28mm isn't too bad if you're ONLY shooting people. My recommendation would be to go for the 17-50 and get an image stabilized telephoto for longer shots like the Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS, Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM or Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS.
1272578
I just love how people keep mentioning conversion factor of lenses for full-frame vs crop sensor to beginners, when most beginners have probably never used a full-frame camera.
1272579
I dont think that would work its not a full frame lens but the 28-75 is so it would be something like a 42-112 or something close to that
1272580
I need to take rodeo team pictures of a large group of kids in a indoor arena that would be low light. Could I do this with a tamron 17-50
1272581
If this is a posed photograph then I would suggest using a tripod (turn off lens image stabilization if you have it), the camera's timer or a remote shutter release and an ISO no higher than 400 if that gives you something comfortably fast enough to avoid "fidget blurring" (and NO FLASH!) and also shoot in RAW in case you need to adjust the white-balance or other image settings latter. You will probably need to snap a number of shots as someone will probably be moving at the wrong time. If this is not a posed photo then a large aperture lens like the Tamron and a high ISO will help (assuming 17mm is wide enought for the shot). If this is a posed photograph then I would suggest using a tripod (turn off lens image stabilization if you have it), the camera's timer or a remote shutter release and an ISO no higher than 400 if that gives you something comfortably fast enough to avoid "fidget blurring" (and NO FLASH!) and also shoot in RAW in case you need to adjust the white-balance or other image settings latter. You will probably need to snap a number of shots as someone will probably be moving at the wrong time. If this is not a posed photo then a large aperture lens like the Tamron and a high... » Read More If this is a posed photograph then I would suggest using a tripod (turn off lens image stabilization if you have it), the camera's timer or a remote shutter release and an ISO no higher than 400 if that gives you something comfortably fast enough to avoid "fidget blurring" (and NO FLASH!) and also shoot in RAW in case you need to adjust the white-balance or other image settings latter. You will probably need to snap a number of shots as someone will probably be moving at the wrong time. If this is not a posed photo then a large aperture lens like the Tamron and a high ISO will help (assuming 17mm is wide enought for the shot). « Show Less
92186
Hello, other than 4mm in the zoom and the nano coating on the 24-70, nothing. If u wanna get technical they are completely different parts internally but they perform almost identically. I am very familiar with both lenses and they both have their ups and downs however I am seeing a lot of the 24-70's having soft focus issues particularly wide open. This can be repaired and we do have access to fix this problem it is a hassle. The 28-70 does not have this problem. The 28-70's major flaw is the squeaky AF. But this is a easy fix. Personally I would save the money and get the 28-70.
1825169
I agree as well with the others. I own the Tamron and love the lens. Very sharp and works great for general use but the 50 I have heard is a great lens. If you don't mind using your feet instead of a zoom you should be good starting with the prime.
1829252
I have both lenses. My experience is that both provides same good image quality. Lack of OIS i do not know.. I use the 25 mm more than the 45 mm now since i can use it for portraits by moving a bit and also "normal" day to day use
2158308
Don't know if Tamron makes the lens, but I am very pleased with the images produced. And I especially like the range 18-270 which gives me the maximum flexibility without having to carry 3, 4 or 5 lens.
135635
If you want versatility, I'd definitely go with the 18-270 lens. I absolutely love mine. I'd also look at the 16-300 Tamron as well. It's a couple hundred dollars more, but I feel well worth the investment.
759248
We thank everyone for there suggestions. We went to the 50 1.4 for a fast lens. Having not used our 17-40 that often, no need to spend mucho money on the 16-35.
1049466
It depends on what you use the lens for. The Tamron will give you a much larger zoom range in a very lightweight lens. But the Nikon will give you better performance over the 16-85mm range. If you mostly use the 16-85 range or make enlargements you may be better off keeping the Nikon. If you want to take more telephoto images and don't need the sharpest possible images and don't shoot a lot in low light you will probably enjoy the Tamron.
297888
Thanks! A lot of specific info.Yeah, I knew the NEX series can't handle the Maxxum lenses.I probably wouldn't be buying any more lenses cause that's why I want the Sony BODY, cause I already HAVE several Maxxum lenses. PLus I really like how they have the IS in the body, not the lens.I don't often shoot sports so that's not a problem to me.I did NOT know that Tamron was associated with Minolta/Sony. To be honest, the original reason I went with Maxxum was that I had trouble seeing well enough to manually focus (took me forever). So I'd probably let the camera do that, and just change the speed/opening.My daughter has a Canon 30D but BOY is that a heavy body!Well, thanks again. I'll prob be buying the A33 body next month. Thanks! A lot of specific info.Yeah, I knew the NEX series can't handle the Maxxum lenses.I probably wouldn't be buying any more lenses cause that's why I want the Sony BODY, cause I already HAVE several Maxxum lenses. PLus I really like how they have the IS in the body, not the lens.I don't often shoot sports so that's not a problem to me.I did NOT know that Tamron was associated with Minolta/Sony. To be honest, the original reason I went with Maxxum was that I had trouble seeing well enough to manually focus (took me forever). So I'd... » Read More Thanks! A lot of specific info.Yeah, I knew the NEX series can't handle the Maxxum lenses.I probably wouldn't be buying any more lenses cause that's why I want the Sony BODY, cause I already HAVE several Maxxum lenses. PLus I really like how they have the IS in the body, not the lens.I don't often shoot sports so that's not a problem to me.I did NOT know that Tamron was associated with Minolta/Sony. To be honest, the original reason I went with Maxxum was that I had trouble seeing well enough to manually focus (took me forever). So I'd probably let the camera do that, and just change the speed/opening.My daughter has a Canon 30D but BOY is that a heavy body!Well, thanks again. I'll prob be buying the A33 body next month. « Show Less
192722
I have a Canon T2i and two Tamron lenses. The 17-50 is my primary lens for landscapes, cityscapes and indoor general purpose use. Yes the lens works great! Huge improvement over the Canon kit lens! Here are some images I took: http://www.flickr.com/photos/baitmouth/ The most recent were taken with the 17-50.
2057617
I've used the Tamron 18-270 for about 3 or 4 years on my Canon XTi and I love it! I can't compare it to a Nikon kit lens. It seems as sharp as my Canon kit lens though. If you can only carry one lens with you, this is the one. I now shoot with a Canon 6D with a 24-105mm Canon lens and it is noticeably sharper than the Tamron, but that may be because the 6D has a full-frame sensor. The Tamron will not fit my full-frame 6D so I can't compare the two lenses on the same camera body.
1589714
As far as I understand it, the Tamron AF 28-75 is a full frame lens. Thus if you have a digital camera with a crop sensor (Canon Xti, T2i, T3i, T4i, 7D) it will actually magnify the lens to be 1.6x greater turning the lens into a 45-120mm. This is not the wide to just over standard lens that most people want for an all around lens. However, may be great for a portrait lens. The 17-55 is a crop sensor lens and is thus equivlent to a 27-80mm lens on a 35mm camera which is the sweet spot for the all around lens. If you have a full frame camera (35mm film, Canon 1D, 5D), then this 17-50 will not work on the camera. It has smaller optics that will not drape light over a full size 35mm frame and will cause severe vignetting on those cameras. Otherwise, I understand that optics are similar overall. I admittedly returned my 17-50mm due to some pretty severe back focusing issues on two seperate copies of the lens. From what I have read this may not be as much of an issue on the 28-75 and if I was willing to wait, I hear the Tamron customer service is pretty good about servicing these lenses. However, I ultimately went with the Sigma 17-50 with the IS, and have been more than satisfied except for the additional $100 cost.
608749
I've owned both. For the obvious, the 17-70 has a more useful FL, while the 17-50 has the constant f/2.8 throughout its range. Physically, the 17-70 takes 72mm filter vs 77mm filters, the weight is lighter by 20% (470g vs 565g) and its a smaller lens which may balance on your APS-C camera better (79mm x 82mm vs 84mm x 92mm). The 17-70 will give you also a psuedo-macro capability at a 1:2.9, which is rather useful. Personally, another point to note (and I've substantiated this myself after coming across it in a few Google blurbs) is that 17mm on the 17-50 is REALLY not 17mm, but 18mm when looked at closely. May not be a deal breaker, but to some it is and the lens really is, in practice, an 18-50 lens. I found the color rendition of the two lenses to be similar (lovely, in fact) and I find the 17-70 to be sharper across the frame at 50mm than the 17-50 is, which is not surprising as that's the farthest reach of the 17-50's FL and it's expected to suffer a tad there. If you haven personally used the new Sigma Contemporary and Art series lenses, I suggest you give them a try. Excellent materials, tight tolerances, well made. I ended up keeping the 17-70f/2.8-4 C and selling the 17-50 f/2.8. I have f/1.8primes to cover the need for low light shooting should it arise, and the extra FL is more important to me
435057
I've never had IS in any lens. This is a hardy lens for travel, but needs a lot of light. A better choice might be the Tamron 28mm-75mm f/2.8 which is a fast lens. And with your 1.5x crop factor, you essentially have a tele up to about 100mm. This is a great lens and I've not used my 18-200 at all since I put it on my camera. The image quality is miles ahead as well. Good luck and have fun.
1594405
I have never used the 11-16 but did research it before buying this lens. I think you will be quite happy with either one and can't really go wrong. They are both sharp, excellent lenses. In my mind the principal trade off is whether you want a slightly wider angle view (there really is a pretty big difference btwn 12mm and 11mm) and a wider aperture or whether you want the extra versatility on the other end since the 12-28 lens goes up to 28mm. Pics are definitely usable at 28mm in my opinion. Ken Rockwell has a great review of both. The only thing I don't agree with him on with regards to the 12-28mm is that I am noticing some CA that I have to remove in post processing (not a big deal to me but worth noting). I will try to post a few sample pics later today. Hope that helps and happy shooting!
1974695
This lens is a little noisy compared to Canon USM lenses, although not as much as an older Tamrom 17-50 I use with a 40D. If any doubts, you can always go a camera store nearby and try a display Tokina 16-28.
1668187
I really like my 16-300 mm Tamron and would recommend it to someone looking to purchase something in that range. That being said, I have never used an 18-270, but, my guess is that you can't get as close or as far with that lens as what I get. But the difference really isn't that much. If it were me and looking to to move up, I'd move up to the Nikon 80 - 400 mm lens. It has what I think is a better glass, and more range. However, you can get a Tamron 150 - 600 mm for about half the price of the mentioned Nikon.