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

I'm glad you posted this, as I'm debating the same thing. I currently have the 400D and the 50 F/1.8, but realized quite quickly that I needed a wider lens so I don't have to stand at the furthest end of my room to get more than a portrait shot. I live in the city as well and I noticed that I find myself wanting to capture some of the grand monuments or buildings here. But with only a narrow street of distance, I usually can't accomplish that without having to stitch the images together.

I can't give a recommendation. I haven't compared the difference between 28 and 17. I was hoping to grab the 28-75 and supplement the wide end with the kit lens (I hear it's a decent lens when it's stopped down). Perhaps upgrade to a 10mm/12mm super telephoto one day. And perhaps someone with more experience can answer - but doesn't one usually want a smaller aperature (higher F stop number) to go with the wide end to have a larger DOF? I guess that's personal preference, but I didn't know if F/2.8 would be nearly that useful on the wide end as it would be on the telephoto end.

ghostman wrote in post #2327786
... - but doesn't one usually want a smaller aperature (higher F stop number) to go with the wide end to have a larger DOF? I guess that's personal preference, but I didn't know if F/2.8 would be nearly that useful on the wide end as it would be on the telephoto end.

Wide maximum aperture will always offer a potential advantage over a narrower maximum aperture because it will allow more flexibility in low light and/or selective focus situations. So, while the user may choose a narrower aperture for landscapes, for instance; she may choose a wider aperture for interior shots without flash, for instance. The f/2.8 maximum aperture doesn't preclude the use of narrower apertures if prescribed by the situation.

I rarely shoot wide at all, so the 28-75 was the best option for me. I prefer reach to wide angle.

17mm = 28mm on a 400d, that is NOT WIDE! I would certainly get the 17-50 the GF's is a brilliant lens and a good price.

Hmm...
When the Tokina's coming out?
If soon, what about Tokina 16-50mm, Tokina 50-135mm and maybe later Canon 70-200mm f/4L????

(Of course, waiting for some reviews first...)

17-50 gets my vote --- to me, its easier to buy telephoto zooms later on (there's tons of em!) and wide is never really wide enough in some instances.

I started with the 28-75. As has already been noted, this is not very wide. I got the Canon EF-S 10-22 for this reason. Then the EF-S 17-5, then the EF 85 f/1.8 and so it continues.

OK, so what - I would recommend you get a wider lens to start with, at least for the holidays. Then, come Jan 1, get the longer lens so you have two lenses to play with when you go outside.

Where you have a choice between a faster lens and a slower lens at a given focal length (range), go with a faster lens as well. It will pay dividends over a less expensive though slower lens.

Above all, BUY QUALITY!!! If you stay with photography, you will be saving money in the long run in that you won't be buying and selling, over and over. If you get out of photography, then the quality lenses will recover more of the purchase price when/if you sell.

I voted for the 17-50. I am going to pick it up this weekend if it's in stock.

dailykimchi wrote in post #2329275
I voted for the 17-50. I am going to pick it up this weekend if it's in stock.

How are the prices in Seoul?

I glanced at your blog. I, too, am a big fan of pulgogi and roasted garlic with pepper sauce in lettuce; along with most forms of kimchi I've had.

I have the 28-75 and it is a great lens, but it just isn't wide enough. I voted for the 17-50. I would think the Tokina should be along almost any day now. I can't imagine Tokina would want to miss Christmas sales season with this lens.

runninmann wrote in post #2329302
How are the prices in Seoul?

I glanced at your blog. I, too, am a big fan of pulgogi and roasted garlic with pepper sauce in lettuce; along with most forms of kimchi I've had.

Thanks for the checking out my blog--I do love the food here, it's soo delicious.

Prices in Seoul are not bad. The area where I save is tax. If I were to buy the same stuff in Canada, I'd have to pay 14% on top of the price. I paid 650,000w ($695US roughly) for the Kiss X body from an authorized Canon retailer. Prices from other small "shops" went as low as $640US. The Tamron 17-50 (Jap. warranty) is going to cost $360US which I think is an awesome price.

have the 17-50.. love it..

I have both lenses. I wouldn't part with either.
If most of your shooting is indoors, then the 17-50.
But, the 28-75 lives on my camera. I find it to be the most useful and it is a stunning lens.
Just, my personal preference!

28-75 is a great general purpose or "walking around" range for a FF.
17-50 is what a 28-75 is supposed to be on a cropped frame.
28-75 on a crop is like a 45-100 or so. This is not a very useful range as there is no zoom like this made for FF cameras.

Like Ron Mayhew, I own both. I'd hate to relinquish either, but the 28-75mm seems to have more accurate AF, and I know at f/2.8 the 28-75mm is better than on the 17-50mm.

I think the real answer lies within what you shoot. I doubt either will be a disappointment to you. BTW - I shoot with a 20D