Tamron 17-50/f2.8 or 28-75/f2.8

foghorn wrote in post #3271786
I guess you don't realize that 28-70 was the normal zoom lens on a FF camera for years.
I really hate it when people talk down to others like your statement.

And I really hate it when people exaggerate and state a 28mm or even 24mm is no good on a crop camera. If you want wideness, get a UWA lens for a crop camera, that is what they are made for.:p

I had the 28-105 on my XTi and thought the 28mm was fine...I also had a 19-35mm and hardly ever used. Most of my pictures are indoor parties and family gatherings, and some portraits. I've been trying to decide between these two lenses for months now....I'm leaning toward the 17-50, and getting an 85 1.8, because I really like how my 50 1.8 works with natural light.
But...I haven't made up my mind either! I also had a kit lens, and I liked the range of my 28-105 MUCH better.

All the strong defense of 28mm as 'good enough' for them is merely proof of my earlier statement that the choice is dependent upon what is 'wide enough' for YOU...the point I made about P&S usually not having a 'wide' zoom lens as often as long focal lengths!

cjm cites that he/she found 28-105mm to be preferred...on an APS-C that was and AOV from 45-170mm on a FF camera, which is 'normal' to 'moderate telephoto'. nothing at all wrong with that finding, but it reflects exactly what I had said about most users leaning in the direction of telephoto focal lengths sooner than they find a need/use for wide angle!

cjm wrote in post #3272088
And I really hate it when people exaggerate and state a 28mm or even 24mm is no good on a crop camera. If you want wideness, get a UWA lens for a crop camera, that is what they are made for.:p

Nobody said it was no good. Find what is best for YOU. I stated what was narrow IMO. However, I suggested that the OP would go the camera store and try them out.
geesh.

cjm wrote in post #3271338
I'd get the 28-75 f2.8. I have a good copy of it and it seems to work really nicely for most shots. Not sure why so many people think 28mm is bad on a crop camera, I guess they don't realize that for decades the standard focal length was 50mm on a full frame film camera and it did just fine for everyone. 24mm on a crop camera IMO is perfect, and 28mm works well too.

The build on the 28-75 is ok. It is like a really sturdy and strong kit lens. Since both of these lenses are essentially that, a good kit lens. It is not junk but it isn't high quality either, because the focus ring moves when AF is on.

A 28-80 on a 35mm camera was/is standard as long as I can remember. That same lens on a 1.6 crop camera is like having a 45-125. Not too practical IMO. Get the 17-50. On a crop camera it'll put you close to the 'standard' 28-80. I find that I have my 24-70 in my bag more often than not and my 10-20 gets more play time. I'm trying to sell my 24-70 now to make room for a 17-40. Mainly because the 24-70 is either not wide enough or too short. I'm either shooting with the 10-20 or the 70-200.

People changed.. so is the taste for the photography..
As a DSLR is getting ever cheaper.. we got a whole new spectrum of people who enjoys a photography now days..
So lets not shut the opportunity door for them..
28mm on APC-S might be wide enough for some people.. but it has a far more potential to become a limitation than being enough.
17-50 is a 27-80 on a APC-S and that is a GOOD and creative focal range for a new comer.

Funny thing is..
If he had FF body.. I am sure most of you guys will naturally recommend 24-70 or 24-105.

Ooo get the 24-104 L

All seriousness, the BEST crop zoom lens is the 17-55 IS, if you have plans for using a crop camera for a long time. Too bad it is only for EFs because it would probably be great on a 1D or 5D camera also. Only draw back is it costs a royal fortune for a nonL (most expensive nonL) and Canon is too cheap to include a hood that would cost them probably a dime to make.

cjm wrote in post #3273096
Ooo get the 24-104 L

I knew it!

Pasukun wrote in post #3273068
If he had FF body.. I am sure most of you guys will naturally recommend 24-70 or 24-105.

Would anybody argue that.

17-50mm/2.8 Color, contrast and workable range is better than the 28-75/2.8...People in the SONY/Minolta CAMP did quite a lot of test on the Tammy 17-50mm. Most people agreed that it's image quality is comparable to SONY's Carl Zeiss 16-80/3.5-4.5 which obviously recieved a very high IQ rating.

I opted for the 28-78 to take family picutes and portriats. I really like it. If have the kit lens you can go back and look at your past pictures in DPP to see if you normally use the lens at the long end or the wide end. I found that most of our pictures were taken on the long end and figured we would enjoy a little extra reach.

iwannabe wrote in post #3269795
This is my first post and what a great forum!
I need help in deciding which lens to go with when I buy the Rebel XTI.
I've been looking at everyone's views on a good multi-use, walk around lens and these two, tamron 17-50/f2.8 or tamron 28-75/f2.8 seem to be highly thought of. Any other suggestions would be welcomed. I would like to be able to photograph nature and portraits, some action if possible and have it be able to work fairly well in low light. Thanks for your help.

It's hard to tell from this how much experience you have and how well you really know your needs.

If you're new to photography in general and are on a budget, then despite some of the advice to the contrary here, I'd go for the kit lens. The reason is simple: the additional expense ($90 or thereabouts) is less than you'll spend for almost any other option.

And although you state you require that the lens you get perform well in low light situations, you don't really describe the situations in any detail. It matters. For instance, if you're talking about night shots, chances are you'll be using a tripod, in which case the kit lens will work nicely (since it's on a tripod, you can stop it down and increase the exposure time).

Finally, you should take a look at this thread if you're convinced the kit lens can't take good pictures. It can and has for many people:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=185522

That thread is inspiring enough that it almost makes me want to go out and buy the kit lens, even though I already have the 24-105L.

The bottom line is that getting experience with the kit lens will give you an idea of what focal length range you tend to want to shoot the most, after which you can make a more sound decision about what lenses to buy. It'll also allow you to learn a bit about how to properly frame your shots, deal with color balance, postprocess your shots, etc. Much of which I'm learning myself, as I'm also relatively new to this. And it'll let you do all that with a minimum of expense.

One more thing: apparently a lot of people wind up keeping their kit lens even after moving up to better glass. So despite a lot of the comments about it, the kit lens apparently isn't all that bad.

He is already considering the 17-50 and 28-75.
So while the kit lens is a great value lens.. he is pass that recommendation point.

To the OP.
Seriously.. If I were in your shoes..
I would get a 17-50 and perhaps add 85.8 later on since you sound like you enjoy a portrait shot.
Or if you prefer telephoto, get a 70-200 f/4 instead.
That should cover your need pretty well for a starter.

Pasukun wrote in post #3275210
He is already considering the 17-50 and 28-75.
So while the kit lens is a great value lens.. he is pass that recommendation point.

It's true that he's considering those lenses, but many people who are just starting out hear that the kit lens isn't very good, has limitations, etc., but aren't given much context for that. They wind up looking at more expensive lenses like the 17-50 or the 28-75 before they truly understand their needs.

If the OP already understands his needs as a result of experience, then I agree with you that he's past the kit lens at this point. But if not, then I think he'd be best served starting off with the kit lens. I'm assuming here that he doesn't have a big pile of money to work with, else (I figure) he'd be buying a more capable body.

If he's going to consider the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, he should also consider the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG Macro, which is apparently very sharp (comparable to the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L).

Agree. Either Tammy 17-50mm/2.8 and Sigma 24-70/2.8 is a very best choice. The Tammy is comparable to Carl Zeiss and the Sigma comparable to Canon L and Minolta G lenses ( in term of IQ)

I would not buy Tamron 28-75/2.8 as it has a potential creeping problem.. that is, the lens extends itself when you are walking around. Bokeh is not as pretty as the sigma (to me) But the lens in general is very sharp, focuses very fast and accurate in most of the time.

kcbrown wrote in post #3276050
If he's going to consider the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, he should also consider the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG Macro, which is apparently very sharp (comparable to the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L).