What do you think?

[napolar]

Ok, I'm about to take the plunge into an upgrade of my glass and I wanted some opinions on the following purchase:

Tamron 28-75 F2.8 XR Di LD
Canon 70 - 200 F4 L
Canon 50 F 1.8 plus hood

Basically I photograph a family & friends at different events and a lot of vaction shots, this will be going on my 300D (for now). In the near future I would like to include some landscapes and a lot of night photography. Let me know if you think this will cover me for now and the near future.

[Citizensmith]

Tamron 28-75 - Never owned one, but its very popular and gets good reviews. Never wanted one though as 28-anything is no use to me on a 1.6x sensor.
Canon 70-200 4 - Lovely lens, own one and its a fantastic piece of glass. It's not a birding lens (too short) and its not a low light lens (that would be the 2.8IS) but for my use as a general purpose telephoto its great.
Canon 50 1.8 - Almost everyone here loves it and its very cheap. I found it kind of boring and got an 85 1.8 instead. I never used my 50 again so I dumped it on ebay. Its a goto lens because its good optics for the money, but there are better options out there if you don't mind spending the cash on them. For instance the 50 1.4 is better in every way, but is it worth the extra money better? That's up to you.

[Jon]

What do you have now? It's easier to suggest where you should go if we know where you're coming from.

[Headcase650]

You might want to also consider the sigma 70-200 2.8 over the canon for very little extra money as it seems your on a budget. I have this lens and am very happy with it. The canon is marginaly sharper. The sigmas extra stop was more valuable to me and may be to you sense you need a lense for low light and night photography. You can never make a lens faster but you can always sharpen up your images a little in photoshop. When you stop the sigma down to 4 or 5.6 it gives nearly identical results as what I have seen from any of the canon 70-200's.

I have read some complaints about the sigma and purple fringing but I have not had any problems with my copy.

Sigmas HSM may be marginaly slower than canons USM but My sigma focuses just as fast as my 28-135 canon USM IS.

Go figure?

[DavidEB]

I'll second the recommendation for the sigma 70-200 f2.8. That plus the other two lenses you mention and you have my lineup (for the small-sensor camera). I'm very happy with the tamron and the 50mm.

I think the sigma is optically equal to the canon f2.8, from my test shots in the store. Also see this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22421) which includes comparison shots & member's opinions. As far as I can tell the drawbacks of the sigma f2.8 to the canon f4 are weight, and marginally slower HSM focusing. The advantage is a full f-stop.

[Big Hands]

I have the three lens' you mention and can heartily recommend them all.

I considered the Sigma 70-200 and it would have been nice to have the extra stop, but before you buy one, go hold it in your hands for a while and think about lugging that thing around. It's a tank and it is black (and depending on where you stand on this issue that may be good or bad), but if the extra stop of light is worth it, you may want it. And the Sigma does come with the tripod adaptor, which is definitely a plus in it's favor. For me, the sharper images (arguably), the considerably lighter weight and especially the faster, quieter AF on the Canon won out. Try 'em all, your needs may vary.

The only thing you don't have *well covered* in this list is the landscape lens. The 28mm of the Tamron is kinda narrow for many landscapes. If you already have the 18-55 kit lens, then you will be OK for now (start saving for that 10-22, it's very nice for landscapes).

[dsze]

I also have those 3 lenses.... excellent choices. I have no problem recommending any of them.... no reservations. They are all well-worth what you'll pay for them.

Citizensmith: why is "28-anything" useless on a 1.6X sensor? Isn't that equivelent to just shy of a 50mm? Whats useless about a 50mm lens? Some consider 50mm to be the one lens to have if you were just going to buy one prime lens. I'm just curious why you say the 28-75 is useless to you, because it is probably my most often used lens.

-daniel

[napolar]

Jon,
I am upgrading from the 18-55 kit lens and two older lenes I purchased when I brought my first Canon, my trusty EOS 630. The first is a Canon 28-70 and the second is a Canon 75-300. Both lenes were purchased back in 1988 and neither are anything special. I am looking to upgrade my glass and then give my old lenes to my wife or one of my sons.

[thomasrhee]

Tamron 28-75/2.8: Great lens, killer value. Great all around lens which gives you near Canon 24-70/2.8L quality images at less than 1/3 the price.

Canon 70-200/4L: Again, great lens, killer value. If you don't need the extra stop or IS, this is the equal of it's bigger brothers.

Canon 50/1.8: Nice lens for the money but if you can swing the extra $$$, go for the 50/1.4. The 2 things that turn me off about the 1.8 is the build quality and the nasty bokeh. You may also want to consider the 85/1.8 which is another great portrait lens. If you do go with the 50/1.8, IMO the hood really isn't necessary on this lens.

[raylks]

The range of the lenses are quite different and they are of different shooting purpose.
If you shoot for night photography, then a fast lens can give you an advantage. If you just shoot for landscape, then the speed of a lens is not an important consideration.
Given that you want to shoot both, I would recommend Tamron which is a fast lens and covers the most popular range for landscape and night photography. Though the wide angle has to be sacrified in 1.6 crop camera, it's still the most suited lens in this context.

[xstrio]

The Tamron is superb , and hasn`t left my camera since i bought it about a month ago , i also own the 50 1.8 but isn`t as sharp as the tamron. only bonus is the extra speed

[IainB]

I have all three. They fight for the right to be the 'chosen one'. Love them all!

[Andy_T]

Same here.

apart from the 18-55 kit lens, I have the 28-75/2.8 and 50/1.8 and use them most on my 20D.
70-200/4.0 is on my wish list and will be my next major purchase.

Just one thing ... I didn't buy the new 50/1.8 MKII, but rather went with a used 50/1.8 MKI from ebay (was lucky to get it in mint condition for $110). Advantage is same image quality as MKII version, but better build (metal mount, distance scale)

Best regards,
Andy

[Jon]

Jon,
I am upgrading from the 18-55 kit lens and two older lenes I purchased when I brought my first Canon, my trusty EOS 630. The first is a Canon 28-70 and the second is a Canon 75-300. Both lenes were purchased back in 1988 and neither are anything special. I am looking to upgrade my glass and then give my old lenes to my wife or one of my sons.

I assume that you won't be passing on the kit lens. Otherwise, you're throwing away any wide angle capabilities you currently have. If you're handing the kit lens on too, think about the 17-40 L instead of the Tamron 28-75, even though it's only an f/4. The 50 can plug the gap between the 17-40 and the 70-200 pretty well. It's a fair chunk of change more, but if you need wide, 28 mm isn't going to do the job.