So I found a deal on Slickdeals for a Tamron 28-75 lens for $375 and I just wanted to get some opinions before I make a purchasing decision. Let me first say that I've held off buying any expensive lenses for my Rebel XTi up to this point, so all I currently have is the 18-55 (non-IS) kit lens and the 50 mm f/1.8 II. :happysad:

Anyway, onto the lens. It's the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di Canon Lens. It looks like it's gotten a lot of good reviews. I keep hearing that since my camera has a crop sensor that the 28-75 is not the true range that I will get. So, what would it be then? Would this be a good walkaround lens for the money or should I look elsewhere?

Here's the deal thread BTW: http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2028316

 

(28*1.6)mm- (75*1.6)mm

 

17-35mm tamron

 

Yeah on a cropped sensor like the Rebel, a 28-75 wouldn't give you a true wide angle. I suppose you could use it as a walkaround lens but that lack of wide angle would probably be annoying.

I just got the Tamron 17-50/2.8 for Pentax. I like it so far although haven't really shot much with it. Can tell it's optically a pretty nice lens though. Tamron also makes an IS version of the 17-50 for Canon. I can't comment on how effective that is (Pentax has in-body IS).

 

Thanks. I finally read up on it a bit and figured it out.

I've not heard much about this lens. Why the suggestion? I'm not looking to spend more than maybe $600...


I'm interested in this lens, as the f/2.8 constant through the entire range of the zoom seems like it would be great for low light. The biggest factors for me in deciding which lens to purchase (besides cost) are the sharpness of the images it produces and that it has a decent "wide angle to walkaround" range (if that makes sense). Is the Canon version you're referring to the one with VC (Vibration Control I guess)?

 

I've heard good things about the Tamron. If the f2.8 isn't a must, I always suggest people who are on a budget to pick up a 18-200MM f3.5

 

70-200 2.8L is calling my name :hsugh:

 

The Tamron 17-35/2.8 is a full-frame lens, the 17-50/2.8 is for cropped sensors only and came out more recently.

For Canon there's both non-stabilized, and VC versions of the 17-50.

My camera has IS in the body and it comes in handy. If you're taking pictures in low light and your subject holds still, you can hand-hold with relatively longer shutter speeds without needing to raise the ISO.

The non-VC is $460 with a $45 rebate so $415. The VC is $650 with a $70 rebate so $580. Or you could try to buy one used.

 

the 17-35mm is what i use for about 90% of everything i do, i can do killer portraits with it, and i can take it out side and get great landscaping shots with it also.

the 17-50mm wasn't out when i got my 17-35mm or else i would go with that, but i can only talk about what i got and use

also ill be upgrading to a 5d soon so ill finally be able to get everything from my 17-35mm


here are some old shots with my first 17-35mm, before my gear got stolen. note the new 17-35mm is sharper then my old one.






and here is a shot with the new 17-35mm

 

Right on man, the shots look good.

I think I'm dead set on the Tamron 17-50 VC lens. I don't plan on going to a FF setup anytime soon (might upgrade to a Rebel T2i this year) so I think it will meet my needs better than anything else I've come across. I appreciate the help from everyone. Now if I can just find a really good deal on one...