Canon ef 28mm 2.8 vs Tammy 17-50 2.8 vs 18-135mm 3.5-5.6

My wife asked me today about a shorter lens to take pics of the rugrat around the house and at general family stuff. She has a big family with siblings, several nieces and nephews. I thought of three lenses right away:

-Canon 28mm 2.8
-Tamron 17-50mm 2.8
-Canon 18-135mm 3.5-5.6

Her comfort zone is under $400, which erases any thoughts of snagging a used 24-105L or 17-40L . . . or a 24-70 or 28-70 2.8 L /Tamron/Sigma, which would probably be my first choice.

She likes the idea of having whatever we get be a good walkaround lens, as well as something that will allow us to take shots at a closer range than my 50 1.8 will allow on my crop body.

The Canon 28mm 2.8 seemed like an inexpensive and solid solution, but she really liked the idea of a zoom lens. My 100 f/2 is great for longer stuff, and I don't mind changing (that much).

I guess what it comes down to is this question: Will I sacrifice THAT much quality at short range with the 18-135? I know I'd be able to use the 28 2.8 for work to justify the expense, so that's not a problem.

And I've heard great things on here about the Tammy 17-50 2.8, and I would probably use that for work as well. Is it worth the extra money over the other two lenses?

Is the 18-135 going to be disappointing anywhere up to 50mm on my 60D? If I'm shooting anything long-ish, I'm doing it with the 100 f/2. That lens is so sharp, tremendous value.

Thanks in advance for your input, everyone.

For a 60D, shooting kids indoors I'd go with the Tamron 17-50, but you might want something a bit longer like the Tamron 28-75. I always seem to be shooting at the long end of my zooms when taking pictures of my kids.

I too found that I preferred the extra reach of the 28-75, but indoors, it is a bit long. The 17-50 would be better for indoors. I wouldn't bother with the 28 2.8 because the 17-50 does that already but more range.

BrickR wrote in post #14062977
I too found that I preferred the extra reach of the 28-75, but indoors, it is a bit long. The 17-50 would be better for indoors. I wouldn't bother with the 28 2.8 because the 17-50 does that already but more range.

I'm only getting one lens, and the 28 was the $$$ saving option. It is probably close to a $200 difference between the 28 and 17-50.

Tamron 17-50 owners seem to like them a lot, from what I've heard. Haven't heard nearly as much about the 28 in comparison.

i'd look at the 35f2 over the 28mm...

but since you want a zoom i think the tamron is the best bet

DreDaze wrote in post #14063807
i'd look at the 35f2 over the 28mm...

but since you want a zoom i think the tamron is the best bet

Dre, I'm not against replacing my 50 1.8 with the 35 f/2 at some point.

Then again, the Canon 24mm 2.8 is going for pretty cheap right now. I could buy one of those and a 550ex for about the cost of the Tamron 17-50 2.8 right now.

Tamron 17-50 2.8 NON-VC is what you want. It's my walk around lens and is the one that is always on my XSi.

There's a thread here on that lense with lots of sharp examples. The VC version's IQ is not as good as the non-VC version.