Which lenses for a beginner?

Rhinotherunt wrote in post #2044487
The Tamron 28-75 2.8 is better built than the 17-85 IMHO. The lens is sharper as well.

Hm, not sure about that. My friends 28-75 already has zoom creep after 4 months of use. In the mean time I have yet to face this problem yet.

what is zoom creep?

blam wrote in post #2076106
what is zoom creep?

It is when the lens will zoom in and out by itself with some help from good ole gravity...

bufferbure1 wrote in post #2076071
Hm, not sure about that. My friends 28-75 already has zoom creep after 4 months of use. In the mean time I have yet to face this problem yet.

I could see that happening. That stated, it still is much sharper and seems better built.

Is there a way to prevent it? or fix it?

blam wrote in post #2077321
Is there a way to prevent it? or fix it?

Nothing really to worry about...

ahh, I see...

Rhinotherunt wrote in post #2044487
The Tamron 28-75 2.8 is better built than the 17-85 IMHO. The lens is sharper as well.

I have owned both at the same time and I would respectfully disagree with the Tamron being better built. The lens barrel of the Tamron has quite a bit more play than the Canon 17-85 IS and the AF of the Canon resides in a completely different universe than that of the Tamron. The focus ring of the Tamron also rotates with the AF, which I found annoying.

As for taking sharper pictures, I will vouch for the Tamron being excellent in that regard, but the Canon is not far off from it.

I don't think the 28-75 f/2.8 lens is crummy or close to it. If it's feature set fits you, it's optically excellent.

The biggest reason for me selling off the Tamron was the focal range. The 28-75 is a range that was developed during film days and is generally more suited to full frame bodies than to a crop body such as the XTi, XT, 300D, 20D and 30D.

That's why so many lenses like the 17-50, 17-55, 16-50, etc. are now being released and not much happenning in the 28-75 range. The numbers are not a coincidence. Multiply 17 x 1.6 (the crop factor of the XTi) and you get 27. Now multiply 50 x 1.6 and you get 80. Hmmmmmmm, 27-80. Sound familiar?

You could be one of the minority that finds that the 28-75 range on a 1.6x camera fits YOUR style better. Maybe it's the right range for YOU. If so, great. All I'm saying is that right now, the 17-50 range is proving more popular for crop body cameras and I would also have to recommend this very versatile range for a first lens for the average DSLR user.

My recommendation for a kit type lens would be the Tamron 17-50. For general photography, the AF is adequate and it's also optically excellent (at least the copy I tried was) and it's priced very affordably compared to the lens it is most often compared to (the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS).

Regards,
Jeff

Big Hands wrote in post #2081528
I have owned both at the same time and I would respectfully disagree with the Tamron being better built. The lens barrel of the Tamron has quite a bit more play than the Canon 17-85 IS and the AF of the Canon resides in a completely different universe than that of the Tamron. The focus ring of the Tamron also rotates with the AF, which I found annoying.

As for taking sharper pictures, I will vouch for the Tamron being excellent in that regard, but the Canon is not far off from it.

I don't think the 28-75 f/2.8 lens is crummy or close to it. If it's feature set fits you, it's optically excellent.

The biggest reason for me selling off the Tamron was the focal range. The 28-75 is a range that was developed during film days and is generally more suited to full frame bodies than to a crop body such as the XTi, XT, 300D, 20D and 30D.

That's why so many lenses like the 17-50, 17-55, 16-50, etc. are now being released and not much happenning in the 28-75 range. The numbers are not a coincidence. Multiply 17 x 1.6 (the crop factor of the XTi) and you get 27. Now multiply 50 x 1.6 and you get 80. Hmmmmmmm, 27-80. Sound familiar?

You could be one of the minority that finds that the 28-75 range on a 1.6x camera fits YOUR style better. Maybe it's the right range for YOU. If so, great. All I'm saying is that right now, the 17-50 range is proving more popular for crop body cameras and I would also have to recommend this very versatile range for a first lens for the average DSLR user.

My recommendation for a kit type lens would be the Tamron 17-50. For general photography, the AF is adequate and it's also optically excellent (at least the copy I tried was) and it's priced very affordably compared to the lens it is most often compared to (the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS).

Regards,
Jeff

Yes, AF focuses MUCH faster on the Canons with USM. Maybe the Tamron I have is not worn in yet. It still has a very smooth zoom, and no creep. I do not think a little creep would bother me. As for wobble, none yet. My Canon 28-135 (Great lens a little soft though) was wobbling right from the box. The IQ is very nice on the Tamron, but not like my Sigma 70-200mm.