So Many To Pick From.

[extrememc]

Hey everyone. I am trying to pick me a new lens to buy. I currently have Rebel XT, niffty fifty, tamron 28-200, the kit. I like doing potriat whether in stidio or outdoors, I also want to get into macros since spring is here. I am looking at the Sigma 17-70 f2.8 4.5, Canon 28-135 IS, Tamron 17-50 2.8. I am working on a $350 budget. Which would you pick, why and do you have any other suggestions?

Thanks in advance.

[darktiger]

85mm 1.8..........

[evandavies]

The Sigma 17-70 is a great lens and has excellent close focus "Macro"

....but, I've had 2 that back focused so you should test it before buying.

The other option (which I now have instead of the 17-70) is the Tamron 17-50 and Kenko extension tubes.
The Tam17-50 is excellent in low light of course and is sharper than the Sigma.
The loss of 20mm is hardly noticeable. The "Macro" isn't as good as the Sigma but with extension tubes its better.

[liza]

The Tamron 17-50 is probably a better lens optically than the other two and is within your stated budget. If you are really into macro, though, the Tamron 90mm lens would be a better choice and would be in your price range. The zooms that are labeled "macro" really aren't dedicated macro lenses. Before I purchased my Canon 100mm lens, I had a Tamron 28-75 that produced some lovely close up images. That would be another lens to consider.

[Mr. Clean]

I had the Sigma 17-70 and loved it. It's the perfect lens I think for a walkaround. If you start getting critical about IQ and constant aperture and speed, then grab the Tamron. Great lens!

[Fernando]

While I liked my Canon 28-135 when I had it I would definitely go with the Tamron 17-50.

I got good shots with the Canon but I've been doing much better with the Tamron.

-F

[Cathpah]

If you like doing portraits but also want to get into macro....get a 100mm 2.8 macro. you can pick up a used one for $400 (and maybe less if you have some patience) and it'll be great for portraits and obviously great for macros. in my opinion...that's your solution. don't even bother with anything else.

[Cathpah]

While I liked my Canon 28-135 when I had it I would definitely go with the Tamron 17-50.

I got good shots with the Canon but I've been doing much better with the Tamron.

-F

17-50 might just be a little to short for most portraits. get too close and you get some serious perspective issues (making nose extra large, etc.)

[superdiver]

I love my 85 1.8...sharp and fast! oh, and cheep! Less the $500 NEW...

[ken_vs_ryu]

Tamron 28-75/2.8