Yet ANOTHER what lens do I need question!!

Seems to be a personal preference thing but I am going to go down that road anyway. You can see from my sig that I have two IS lenses for my XTi. Now as a crop I know I really lose some wide, but is there a BIG difference in that last 17.6mm (crop factored in) assuming I add a 17-50 Tamaron as has been suggested?

I bought a body with no kit lens after reading more than a few awful reviews on the XTi's 18-55 but now I'm being told by several that the kit I pieced together is missing a very important low end. I have a decent P&S (oxymoron?) that I use where appropriate but the nagging thought is that I have too much in overlap in the long end. My initial plan was to use the P&S for the rare wide that I couldn't get with the 28 until I could justify the expense of another lens.

I got the 28-135 as my "walk-around" on a buddies advice and the 70-300 for sports stuff with the kids. I realistically will still likely take as many pics with P&S as with XTi at least until I get confident and better. But will I regret the 28-135/70-300 combo?

See the Tamron on sale this week at a few places and wondering if I should bite the bullet and do it.

I'm open for suggestions. NEW SLR user and really still learning as is obvious by my questions.

Shawn

I think 28mm may not be wide enough is some situations. So I'd probably suggest an UWA like the canon 10-22mm since you already have the 28-135.

Trying to not spend ANOTHER arm & leg (relative I know) for a "might need it sometimes" lens.

Choices are try and get a kit lens from someone who has upgraded vs spend the 300-400 on a tamaron that everyone keeps telling me I NEED.

You sure are missing the wide angle if 28mm is the widest you have. As for "needing" a Tamron 17-50 that's up to you to decide. There are other wide angle options that won't cost so much if you are on a budget - sigma 10-20mm is quite a bit less than the canon 10-22 as suggested above and is very good. There are kit lenses available on ebay and the new kit lens with IS is available too. Also, the sigma 17-70 is considered to be a good kit upgrade option.

Docthomas wrote in post #5644888
Trying to not spend ANOTHER arm & leg (relative I know) for a "might need it sometimes" lens.

Choices are try and get a kit lens from someone who has upgraded vs spend the 300-400 on a tamaron that everyone keeps telling me I NEED.

Every lens is a "might need sometimes" lens. It just depends if it is worth it to you to have it handy at those "sometimes." With your current set up you could use something like the canon 10-22, sigma 10-20, or tokina 12-24. Then again you have to justify that 500-700 dollars to yourself. It seems like you are fine with you what you have and other people are trying to influence you. You buy what you can be comfortable with. You aren't going to enjoy the lens nearly as much if you are stressing about money at the same time.

Now both of those are significantly out of my $$ range for now and are slower than the 2.8 of the 17-50

Is this a problem?

maybe I should just pick up the 18-55 kit lens for $60 and use it till I decide whether I'm MISSING the wider angles.

Docthomas wrote in post #5644979
Now both of those are significantly out of my $$ range for now and are slower than the 2.8 of the 17-50

Is this a problem?

Is it a problem? Given your current experience do you feel you need a wider aperture? Do you have plans to do low light shooting? Are you looking for a shallower depth of field? Ask yourself these questions, we can't decide what you need or want.

That may not be such a bad Idea. It will give you an Idea about what your next purchase should be.

Haru wrote in post #5645055
Is it a problem? Given your current experience do you feel you need a wider aperture? Do you have plans to do low light shooting? Are you looking for a shallower depth of field? Ask yourself these questions, we can't decide what you need or want.

That may not be such a bad Idea. It will give you an Idea about what your next purchase should be.

This is the crux of it.

I certainly wouldn't get the Tamron just for the 17mm wide end. And it's because you've mentioned focal length so significantly that people are suggesting the UWA lenses. If it's wide you want, get wide.
The two lenses you have, while I have no personal experience, are very highly regarded. Regarding the 28-135, I have the genetically similar 28-105 and love it to bits. IS on it would be fantastic, to the point I'm considering the 28-135 myself. For me it just seems like a great all-rounder, even with the compromise of wide end and max aperture.
Back to the Tammy though, for me the big deal is the constant 2.8. If THAT is what you decide you need, get it. It's a beaut. If a lens in that focal length range is all you're after, there are cheaper (Canon18-55 IS springs to mind).

awesome responses guys. helps a lot. While I like the Tamaron I'm nor sure I'm good enough to really want or NEED it. I simply was as you correctly pointed out looking for the extra focal length I was told I needed.

So i guess I'll try this for a bit and see if I miss it. Not good enough to even really understand the advantages/disadvantag​es of the f2.8. (I know faster lens lower light but at what costs?) but I got swept up into you NEED this you NEED that and maybe I'll just play a bit.

i did consider the 18-55 IS vs just the 18-55, was told no real NEED for IS in shorter lengths like that. Again, i don't know enough to form myt own opinion YET. But I'm learning

Thanks everyone. Ever post has added something and I'm learning by exponential amounts.

well, i got the tamron and I really like it. the 2.8 makes a BIG difference indoors and has actually saved some shots i couldn't have gotten away with another lens. very forgiving especially with a custom white balance.

Thanks everyone for the input. i'm glad I made the leap.

Shawn.