Crunch Time, help me choose a damn lens :D

[Persian-Rice]

Ok guys, I have my sights set on 3 lenses and need to choose one.

They are the:

17-40 F4 L -Mint Used $580 No taxes
70-200 F4 L - New $610 + Taxes
Tamron 28-75 Xr Di + Kenko extension tube set. - New $540 + Taxes

All prices include shipping.

(LOL my IE spell checker told me to change the Tamron to tampon)

Assume I have no other lenses and I need it for journalism/street, some landscape & general use. I know how they all perform and they are all really great.

Thanks

[slin100]

You gotta tell us what you have. Otherwise, it'll just be random picks from us based on our own desires. All three lenses are excellent in their own right.

[Persian-Rice]

You gotta tell us what you have. Otherwise, it'll just be random picks from us based on our own desires. All three lenses are excellent in their own right.

Thats the thing, Assume I have no lenses. Just take into consideration what I need the lens for.
I will be back tomorrow to check up, g'night.

Oh BTW, chances are this lens will be mounted on a film camera more often then not.

[LarryB]

What camera?

I'm not sure I follow the significance of listing the prices. ???

Given the criteria you've outlined, particularly the journalism/street part, I would suggest the 17-40.

[Persian-Rice]

I have two 10D's an Elan7n and a 7ne but I am upgrading to two 1.3 crop cameras in January.

I posted the prices to get a more "overall" reponse, because I also take price into consideration as everyone else does.

[slin100]

It's a toughie. To me, a 70-200 does not serve well as a general purpose lens, so that rules it out, IMO.

That leaves the other two. I own both of them, although having just gotten the Tamron, I haven't had any opportunity to use it. Prior to getting it, I used the 28-135 quite a bit. Outdoors, I found the range covered by the 28-135 much more useful than the 17-40. The 17-40 gets reasonably wide but its reach will be a bit lacking on a 1.3x crop factor camera. 28mm nets you a teeny bit of wide angle, but on a film camera, it should serve quite nicely. So, I would give a slight edge to the Tamron on the basis of the utility of its focal lengths. In an ideal world, you would get both! No wait, all three would be ideal! :D

I'm not sure why you're bundling the extension tubes with the Tamron, if only to equalize the cost :?:

[Ballen Photo]

Assume I have no other lenses and I need it for journalism/street, some landscape & general use.


Based on this criteria, I chose Canons 17-40 for Ya.
(Plus, the Canon will hold it's value better than the Tamron)
-Bruce

[Persian-Rice]

Yes, but also because I want the extension tubes and might as well order them if I get the Tamron.

I plan on getting the 70-200 before next spring, because I broke mine and because I don't think I am in a rush for one. Ill wait for a deal I guess.

I guess that narrows it down to the Tamron and the 17-40.
I hear the Tamron is of equal quality in terms of image. But I would also like a good build. I counter offered some guy on a 17-40 right now, if he accepts I think I will go with the Canon because thats a good deal, if not, the Tamron and tubes it is.

It's a toughy because the two lenses have their own good aspects and they both suit my needs quite well.

[MarkH]

OK here's my suggestion:

Get the Tamron and use it as a general purpose lens. Next step is to keep saving for more lenses. You will need to think carefully about whether you really need longer or wider more urgently for the second purchase, you will get some idea while using the Tamron. Of course the 3rd lens is easy, get the one you haven't bought yet.

[Andy_T]

What MarkH said.

It'll give you about the reach of a Canon G3 (OK, not quite on the wide end), and we all know that's a good all-around camera :lol:

Best regards,
Andy

[commando]

The "tamron is optimised for digital cameras" according to their website, but I have no idea what that really means. The zoom range of the tamron is ideal for a general purpose lens, the others are too long or too short IMHO. I'd get the Tamron first, the zoom second, and the wide third.

[Jesper]

Assuming you have no lenses, I'd go for the Tamron 28-75 because, looking at the zoom range, it's the most versatile general purpose lens.

[sGu]

Photojournalism/street and landscape, answer is 17-40mm, for general purpose, 28-70mm.

For all photojournalism work, I only uses 17-40mm and 70-200mm, and 50mm for low light jobs. A lot times you'll find yourself in some place where there isn't enough room and you will want to squeeze through crowd to get a shot, so you either right in the front or you not.

Landscape, well, wide angle is usually a must.

My vote went for 17-40mm

[CyberDyneSystems]

28-75mm... for all of the above.. I just don't know what macro rings are in there for... (ie: why only included with the 28-70)

Two points:
1. Landscape does not necesarily = wide angle.
2. 28mm is wide angle.


The points being that 28mm is wide enough for a lot of what we ask of a wide angle lens. When it comes to lanscapes.. I keep finding I put the 17-40mm on and shoot more frames at 40mm than at 17mm. In fact.. I shoot plenty of landscapes and sunsets with my 100-400mm.

If you had listed sports or wildlife,. my choice would have been 70-200mm

But you did not so.. to me 28-75mm is the sweetspot. And most importantly.. it is the only lens listed faster than f/4,.. at f/2.8 it will be a very handy lens in low light situations.

[Scottes]

"for journalism/street, some landscape & general use"

Tamron fits that bill completely, the other 2 do somewhat.

[Belmondo]

This is a little 'off-the-wall', but I'm very happy with the Sigma 24-60 (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0405/04051202sigma2460.asp)

It's a new lens, and there hasn't been a lot of 'hands-on' reviews of it, but my experience has been excellent. I know......in a world where 24-70 seems to be the norm, some might wonder why this lens instead of the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 at the same price. The 24-60 is optically superior, smaller, and lighter. That's why.

Street price seems to be $409. I love mine.

[Jon]

28-75. Maybe it's not long enough, and not wide enough, but either of the others will shove you way to one end of the curve. At least this way you'll be better able to tell what you're bumping into for needs.

[Persian-Rice]

Hey thanks guys. I think I will go with the Tamron as it appears to be the most logical choice and popular one as well.

I do sports photography, but nothing much during the winter. I go to as many F1 races as I can afford to and have my tickets in hand for next years Canadian GP as usual, I will definitely buy a long lens for the summer, but at this time I need something more practical I think.

Belmondo ill take a look at that lens before I make any final decisions. The Tamron images are L equivalents, which is what I am really looking for. I was planning on leaving an order somewhere on Friday. So that leaves me some time to check the 24-60 out, I think my local camera store might have one.

As for why I included the tubes, because I wanted to see if It would be better to buy a Tamron and tubes or just go for a single L lens due to pricing. I have never tried Macro, so was interested in getting these.

Thanks again guys.

[Adam Hicks]

If you get serious about motorsports, the first place to go in my opinion is the 100-400L AFTER you get the Tamron. It's such a versatile lens. If you're doing gymnastics or other indoor sports, you might want a brighter prime, but for outdoors I just love the 100-400 for a motorsports all-in-one lens.

Adam

for what it's worth...

http://www.golilm.com/images/MiscCar/orangeyellowdrag%20small.jpg

http://www.golilm.com/images/MiscCar/CMKXracer.jpg

http://www.golilm.com/images/MiscCar/dragharley.jpg

http://www.golilm.com/images/irl/IMG0738.JPG

[Persian-Rice]

I'm a career photojournalist, not sure if I am too big on sports. However I am a motorsports nut, so I might invest in something like that.

BTW if anyone was wondering, I already do own a 17-40 and own a broken 70-200............... but the reason I asked people to not consider what I have is because I use two separate sets of equipment and transferring lenses from one set to another is not usually/always possible for me. I don't always have access to all my equipment.

Cheers

[Olegis]

I voted for the Tamron :
1. Because I have it and am very familiar (and pleased) with it.
2. Because its 2.8 aperture will give you more flexibility in all kinds of lighting.