Can decide between Tamron lens

Both are f2.8
17-50 and 24-75. 24-75 will work on FF but 17-50 does not. But I do not plan on going FF anytime soon.

17-50 has a wide enough angle but not long enough. 24-75 will have the reach but not wide enough. I put my 18-135 and put the lens on 24mm and so far it isn't too bad. I can deal with that. But in terms of IQ, I see better results from the 17-50 or is that just me since I'm leaning towards the 17-50?

If I do get the 24-75, I'll have 24mm to 300mm covered and I'll probably sell my 18-135 or leave it at home. But if I do get the 17-50, 50-70mm will not be covered.

the 28-75 is an excellent lens. I have had one for years. You have to decide for yourself which range is more useful for you.

you can crop the 50mm range to look like 75mm but you can't make 28mm look like 17mm (without splicing separate pics).

I've had 28-135mm some time ago and I often found 28mm end limiting on the crop body. Switched to Tamron 17-50mm and the wide end was just what I needed.

Even on my 18-135, I never use anything below 24mm. And if I did, it was rare.
I do want a f2.8 for better indoor IQ so maybe I might use the 17mm more.
Both are at an amazing price so its just the hard part of which one to get.

For crop, I'd choose 17-50 because of focal length

I had 450D + Canon 17-55 before and loved the length. (I have 85mm to cover the longer length though)

Analyze your pics. Do you frequently use 18-28mm of your 18-135?

RHChan84 wrote in post #13191606
Even on my 18-135, I never use anything below 24mm. And if I did, it was rare.
I do want a f2.8 for better indoor IQ so maybe I might use the 17mm more.
Both are at an amazing price so its just the hard part of which one to get.

sounds like you've already made the decision.

Yup and to your previous comment, you can crop out what you at wide angle made more sense and pretty much made my decision on it.

No wonder you've got a tough choice. You're picking between two of Tamron's real winners! You won't go wrong either way

And both are at a good price. Just' cant justify the price for the Canon versions. Tamron was my next best choice IMO.

RHChan84 wrote in post #13191288
I see better results from the 17-50 or is that just me since I'm leaning towards the 17-50?

But if I do get the 17-50, 50-70mm will not be covered.

The 17-50 is a nice lens and you know how to cover the 50-70mm...? take a couple of steps forward/back.

patrickf117 wrote in post #13192064
The 17-50 is a nice lens and you know how to cover the 50-70mm...? take a couple of steps forward/back.

Or, if the subject is a mountain, catch a bus. There is no such thing as foot-zooming.

I'd be inclined to consider the 24-75 with a view to adding a specialist UWA lens (Tokina, Sigma, Canon) if the lack of anything wider than 24 becomes problematical after you sell the 18-135.

28-75 would be a great lens to just leave on the camera. But like Wile_E said, you can always crop but cannot go wider unless you take multiple frames.

Plus, Tamron makes good stuff so if I ever wanted to sell it, it might not be hard to sell it and get the 28-75

I had the 28-75 loved it but felt limited by the fairly narrow wide end. Traded it for the 17-50 and I was very happy with it. Only traded to the Sigma for the OS.

I've owned both and still have the 28-75mm. For what I shot the most (kids), the 28-75mm range works best for me whether on FF (mostly indoors) or 1.6x crop (mostly outdoors).