Walk around Lens Help

I have been going though searches on different lenses that have been recommended as walk around lenses and my head is spinning. My current set up is as follows, DRebel XT, 18-55 (kit lens), Canon 50mm 1.8, and the Canon 70-300mm 4-5.6 IS. The 70-300 is on my camera the most followed by the 50 and every once and a while I put the 18-55 on. What I photograph the most are my dog, flowers, birds, and nature (local forest preserve). What I want is a nice lighter weight then the 70-300, sharp clear images, and fast auto-focus. Here are the ones that I have been looking at per previous recommendations.
Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8
Tamron Autofocus 28-75mm f2.8
Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USMI would love to get my hands on a piece of L glass but there is no way with my budget that I would be able to afford it. I am going to have to stay at or below the $500 (US) mark, but the lower the better. Please ask any questions I am not shy, but if you have any photos that I can reference that would be appreciated.

The 2 "winners" on your list are the 2 Tamrons. Most would say that the 28-75 isn't wide enough for a walkaround. Get the Tamron 17-50/2.8. Either of the Canons you mention are ok but not great.

I have a Sigma 18-125mm as a walkabout lens on my EOS 20D or on the wife's 400D. We are currently looking for another walkabout lens, I'm a bit reluctant to buy another Sigma, but only because I'm not sure we need two of the same thing.

I don't know how it compares with the lenses you've listed, but it works well for us.

Cheers!

I have the Canon 24-85mm F/3.5-4.5 It's a good walk around lense that you should be able to get around $300.00 It has given me some good results. Just my 2cents worth.

I own all 4 of the lenses you list plus the Sigma 18-125mm that Geejay mentioned. I used the Sigma a long time until I spent a lot of time looking at my photos that were taken with it and decided that it really was not an improvement over the Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM.

The Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is just too soft (or mine is anyway), slow to focus and the lens creep really annoyed me!

So I'd agree with gasrock's - the 2 Tamron's you've listed are solid performers. The 17-50 is in my bag almost all the time, particularly for indoor or nightime events. The choice is what range you like to shoot at 17-50 or 28-75. I'd vote for the 28-75 as a walkaround.

Except for the 17-50 Tamron, I think that your other choices aren't wide enough for an everyday walkabout lens. Instead of the Canon 28-135 IS, I would look at the 17-85IS, which is basically the crop version of that lens. Another choice would be the Sigma 17-70. Either one would cover you from 17mm to 300mm with two lenses. The 17-85 would give you IS throughout that range. A very nice two lens setup.

Thank you all for all of your input! I hate to throw more things in the pot but dose anyone know anything about the Tamron 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 and the Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3. Maybe I just want too much out of one lens, and should just stick with the 17-50?

The 17-50 is your best bet of that bunch. It gives you a nice starting FOV for your small-sensor body. IQ is good too.

nan3182 wrote in post #3131686
Thank you all for all of your input! I hate to throw more things in the pot but dose anyone know anything about the Tamron 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 and the Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3. Maybe I just want too much out of one lens, and should just stick with the 17-50?

I think you're better off with the Tamron 17-50. Hyperzooms tend to have poorer image quality. There really isn't one lens that does it all.

I kind of figured that I was asking for too much on that one. Thanks

All the lenses on your list have a following, and assuming you get a good copy, they are all good performers. The two Tamrons are very popular...fast and able to deliver good image quality. I've used the Canon 28-105mm in the past and found it to be very good as well. The results were a surprise.

And the 28-135mm has been around for a very long time. Some say that it fares very well even compared to the new Canon 24-105mm, considering it's 1/3 the price.

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, but to me, your greatest concern here should be the focal length range.

If the 70-300mm is on your camera most of the time then it leads me to assume that you are a tele shooter. If you choose the 17-50mm, you may only use it as often as your 18-55mm. Hence, even if the image quality is superb (which I am sure it is), it is not financially wise to put down more money on a lens you hardly ever use.

Even the two Canons might be a little short for your purposes. Sigma has a 50-150mm f/2.8 for APS-C sized sensor bodies, but I'm not sure if it's worth buying this because there will be too much overlap between this lens and your 70-300mm IS, itself being an excellent lens.

If you're strictly looking for a 'walkaround' lens and are not concerned about focal length comparisons, then I would pick the Tamron 17-50mm if I were in your shoes.

However I'd suggest searching the internet for a program called Exposure Plot. Use this to analyze all your photos to see which focal length you commonly use.

Someone at these forums once told me to put the most money on the lens you use the most often, and it's one of the best pieces of advice I've ever taken.

The Tamron 28-75 is on my wishlist. I've seen some pretty amazing photos taken with it.

The 28-105 is on my camera about 90% of the time. I find the focal length of this lens to be ideal for taking pics of the kids indoors, outdoors, etc. I have the kit lens, the 18-55, which I found to be lacking in reach for my use, which looks like your situation as well. If you don't use your kit lens because of the reach, then you probably won't use the Tamron 17-50.

I say go for the Tamron 28-75 or the Canon 28-105.

I have the 28-75. I think depending on your environment, it 'might' not be wide enough.
Outdoor BBQ's etc I have used it and found it usable and the length allowed me to zoom in across the yard.

Say at a dinner table, then the 17-50 is probably a better performer.

Thank you all so much for taking time to post our thoughts they have helped me out a lot. fWord you really nailed it, I am more of a tele person. But towards the end of July I am going to be going on a camping trip out east and I know I am going to want to have something wider on my camera, for a lot of shots. I know that is most likely between the 2 Tamron's, but I am still suck, I like 17mm and I like 75mm. So I want to know if it would be worth it to compromise and go with this Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5? Have you heard about it is it any good. Then I think is it worth giving up the constant 2.8?

fWord wrote in post #3131954
However I'd suggest searching the internet for a program called Exposure Plot. Use this to analyze all your photos to see which focal length you commonly use.

http://www.cpr.demon.n​l/prog_plotf.html