Tamrom 28-75 or Canon 28-135?

[morris_jay]

I live in Australia, so the prices are going to be different for you guys, but heres the scene:

Tamrom 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for $580

or

Canon 28-135 IS f/3.5-5.6 for $750

or

Kit lens (18-55 f/3.5-5.6) + 50 f1.8 + Xdrive around $650

[jfred]

The tamron.

I haven't used the Canon 28-135, but I own the kit lens and the 50mm f1.8. If I had to sell or give away all my other lenses tomorrow, the Tamrom would be the keeper.

[condyk]

I had the 28-135 IS and really didn't take to it in terms of image quality, though I recognise its other benefits. I'd much rather have the 17-85 IS if I was looking at an IS walkaround because it just has a better range on a 1.6 body. The Tamron replaced it and that is a fine lens I can happily recommend. I personally prefer my current Sigma overall but more to do with weight and handling, tho' I like the extra on the wide end too. Kit lens is Ok. 50mm II is a useful lens but won't compete with the Tamron or Sigma for me.

[grego]

The Tamron. 2.8 baby!

[Andy_T]

Tamron 28-75/2.8 + EF-S 18-55 kit lens + 50/1.8 ...
... exactly my starting setup, before I upgraded to the 50/1.4

Best regards,
Andy

[Goondockjeff]

Tamron all the way. Its my most used lens in my case, even though I also have an L and others.Get the XR DI of course.

[morris_jay]

Will 28mm be wide enough for me?

The main focus on getting my dSLR is for taking photos when we are fishing, and hopefully getting some articles published in fishing magazines.

The thing is when we land a fish, and we are in the boat, the furthest distance I can get from the subject and the fish is around 2 metres.

Will the tamron be wide enough to fit a waste up portrait with a fish (up to 1.2metres of fish) in???

Should I just get the kit lens first, and wait until I find out what focal lengths I need?

[tim]

The Tamron, for the F2.8, and for the image quality. The only time I want wider is for landscapes, which is why I got the 12-24.

[ron chappel]

I'd go for the tamron of those choices -small apertures really get restrictive after awhile.Only a large aperture helps keep the shutter speed up for low light action, image stabilization only helps you get away with using a slower shutter speed:(

....but then the tamron isn't THAT much better in aperture size....maybe a great option would be the 28-135 + the 50/1.8 for low light shots!

[antaine]

I have voted for the Tamron - it is a great portrait type lense but I confess that it isn't wide enough for me.

[Tsmith]

Just have a look at PBase to draw a conclusion on the 28-135mm.

[Jon]

The Tamron will, at its widest, allow you to get your 1.2 m fish shot from about 1.5 m distance. That's going to be at the widest zoom. If you think that might be marginal I'd suggest getting the kit lens and the Tamron, or considering the Sigma 24-70 instead of the Tamron for about the same price.

[condyk]

If it seems you need a bit more on the wide end possibly then add the 17-85 IS Canon, and 18-50mm 2.8 and 24-70 2.8 Sigma's to you list. Won't you be rolling about if trying to takes shots in a small boat?

[morris_jay]

Won't you be rolling about if trying to takes shots in a small boat?

The rivers around 30ft wide, bairly flows and no wind gets in there...

It's pretty flat, and pretty beautiful.

The Tamron will, at its widest, allow you to get your 1.2 m fish shot from about 1.5 m distance.

Well that looks like what I want then. I'll probably get the kit lens first and see if I need the wider zoom. And if I don't, just get the tamron. And if I do... Well thats another thing all together.

[OregonRebel]

I second the EF-S 17 - 85. 28 - 135 isn't wide enough.

[MadMesh]

I second the EF-S 17 - 85. 28 - 135 isn't wide enough.

Me too, Id say get the 17-85 for sure. Its got IS, its a really nice lens, a bit on the more expencive side but the range is fantastic.


Im actually having a hard time trying to pick my "every day lens" Its either the 17-85 or the Faster Tamron 28-75.

Im still leaning a little more towards the canon 17-85 due to IS and the range. BUT, on the other hand, I already have a 10-22 for my wide, and the 28-75 tamron would fit the bill a little better. Its faster, cheaper, and comes with a hood. Only thing it lacks is IS. And my 10-22 takes care of the Wide Range for me.

What do you guys think?

For the Original Posters Question, id say go wit ha 17-85

[Cadwell]

I have both (28-75mm and 28-135mm). The Tamron's optics are far superior therefore it gets used and the Canon doesn't.

[Maureen Souza]

My Tamron is my workhorse... it gets 80% of my photos and does a great job

[Andrew Pratt]

Like Maureen my Tamron just about lives on my 10D. Its amazingly sharp.

[DavidEB]

I don't understand why canon thinks people would rather pay for IS than for good image quality and fast aperatures.

[Jon]

I don't understand why canon thinks people would rather pay for IS than for good image quality and fast aperatures.
Huh? Given that where Canon makes an IS and a sorta-competitive non-IS L the non-L with IS is cheaper, what's your point? 24-70 L vs. 28-135 IS, 70-200 f/4 L vs. 75-300 IS. It's cheaper to bolt IS onto an existing lens than to design a whole new lens with juiced optics, and that's often what they've done in the non-L IS lenses.

[Andy_T]

I think Canon hopes that there are a lot of people who are willing to pay more for a Canon product than for a third party product with better image quality - but without the name.

IS can really sweeten the deal, because it might be a very usable feature for many users.

Best regards,
Andy

[Kadath]

LOVE my 28-75. Its the best bang for the buck lens in my price range.

Sam

[ed2day]

I don't understand why canon thinks people would rather pay for IS than for good image quality and fast aperatures.

Probably because people do exactly that. The 28-135 has got to be one of the best selling lenses ever. And the 28-135 is very good image quality, at least mine is. Hangs right in with the "L's". But I'd still give the nod to the Tamron--the image quality is remarkable in the better shots I've seen.

[Andrew Pratt]

Here's one of my sharpest 28-75 pics Haley (http://www.pbase.com/apratt/image/46807200/original)

[m3elmo]

tamron voted here too...but as others said...possibly not wide enough for me. I'd go for the sigma 24 probally to be a tad on the wider side.

[morris_jay]

If my trigonometry is correct then having a wide angle field of view of 32°, to fit 1.2 metres in that field of view I would need 2.09 metres between the lens and the subject.

(give the angle would be 16° in a right angled triangle and the opposite side 0.6 metres

x = 0.6/tan16
= 2.092...

Is this correct?)

[Andy_T]

My math lessons are too far away for me to easily do the math now.

So I just glanced through my 20D with 28/1.8 lens and think that your calculation is off.

I think it's more a 1 meter distance to get 1 meter of field of view (right to left, very crudely estimated)

Best regards,
Andy

[Jon]

The 28 on a 1.6x crop has an AoV of 45 degrees. That corresponds to a FoV of 804 ft at 1000 ft (substitute metres, if you like. The numbers won't change), or a field of view of about 0.8x subject distance. So, for a 1.2 m. fish as stated above, dist. = 1.2m/0.8 = 1.5 m, in landscape mode.
Angle of view for a lens is 2 * Atan( (1/2 sensor dimension)/(focal length)), which for a 28 on a DR/10D family works out to 2 * Atan(11.25/28) = 2* 21.89 deg, = 43.78 deg. FoV is 2x (Tan(AoV/2)*Dist).

[MadMesh]

IS is so nice to have on a lens... I was at a wedding drunk off my a** shooting with a 70-200 IS lens, and my shots came out to pro printing standards hahaha.

I LOVE IS

[Dante King]

If you have no other lenses, and on a limited budget, go for the canon 28-135. It covers the longest spread. Other wise, if you are planning to fill a kit bag, I would start with the 50mm 1.4. I would avoid a kit lens altogether and flesh out my coverage on both ends.