Clash of Tamrons, whhich one should I get? VOTE PLEASE!

I'm helplessly bound between the
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II
and
Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD.

I'll be getting a 400D soon, w/o the kit lens. My only photography style is gereral, I still don't know if I'll be a fan of wide angle shots! Personally, I think I won't but...
Life is full of surprises!
Having tried both out, IMO they are of equal quality! Help me decide, would you?

Thanks,
BrewsterPilot

Well if you don't want to go very wide angle, get the 28-75. I've played with both, and owned the latter, and it was the winner, and was very nice. Nice and sharp.

I prefer extra length over wider angle. It's just personal preference, really. Both are fine lenses.

Tough to answer. I personally chose the 28-75 and got the Tokina 12-24 for wider stuff. In addition, I have a 17-85 just in case. With that being said, I think that if my one and only lens had to be one of the 2, I'd go for the extra width of the 17-50; especially with holiday gatherings coming up and the likelihood of a lot of interior shots.

If you can live without the wide, the 28-75 is better. I can't stand the whine of the AF motor on the 17-50. I returned mine because it made me cringe.
And yes, I had both of these lenses at one time.

You will need the wide angle for your camera, and 17-50mm fit right in. So unless you plan to get another wide angle lens, I would recommend you choosing the 17-50mm. 28mm is not wide enough for 400D.

I have the 28-75 and I love it, but sometimes I wish I had gone for the 17-50, just for the wider angle. If WA is not important to you, definitely get the 28-75. It's a great lens.

Go wide !!! You know you want to

I have the 28-75 and it fills my general needs 95% of the time. When I needed wider it was for landscapes and I used the kit lens, but recently added the Sigma 10-20.

Is a full frame camera in your future?

davidfig wrote in post #2325014
Is a full frame camera in your future?

Prolly not in many years. At least 5, I think even more.

For a general walk-about lens I think you need the versatility the 17mm wide end gets you. As far a s more reach goes, the chances are that before too long you are going to be getting some sort of telephoto zoom in the 70-2/300 range - because that's what pretty much every body does.

the range 17-300mm is the most used , and the range 17-55 is the most versatile, IMO.

So I voted 17-50. but you will be happy with either, especially if at some stage you are planning an ultra wide 10-20 odd.

Remember the 400D is a crop camera so 28mm becomes ~45 mm, which is not wide by any means. 17mm becomes ~27mm. Adequate for general use.
I'd go for the 17-50. Own one myself and I'm very happy with it.
You can always complement it for instance with the upcoming 50-135 2.8 Tokina.
That will give you a nice, fast combo.

foghorn wrote in post #2324964
If you can live without the wide, the 28-75 is better. I can't stand the whine of the AF motor on the 17-50.

It certainly does whine, but oh how I love it so....

BrewsterPilot wrote in post #2324421
I'm helplessly bound between the
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II
and
Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD.

I'll be getting a 400D soon, w/o the kit lens. My only photography style is gereral, I still don't know if I'll be a fan of wide angle shots! Personally, I think I won't but...
Life is full of surprises!
Having tried both out, IMO they are of equal quality! Help me decide, would you?

Thanks,
BrewsterPilot

28mm give you NO WIDE ANGLE and for that reason only i would pick the 17-50 if this was to be my only lens.

ed rader

Never have had the 17-50 but i have the 28-75. I found with the kit lens i was usualy on the long end anyways. Since i've gotten this lens it's hardly come off my camera.