Would you make this trade?

Would you exchange a Tamron 28-75 for a Canon 28-135? I have and like the Tamron, but always seem to be zoomed out to the 75 end. Also, I'm using it less for low-light photography since I got my 85 f/1.8 prime.

I have the opportunity to make a straight trade for the Canon, but am hesitating because when I do use the Tamron, I just love the colour and sharpness it produces. However, the 28-135 would be a much more useful walkabout range for me, and the IS is tempting.

Any thoughts?

what other lenses do you have?

if the canon will be more useful to you and help you take more photos you like, what's not to like about the trade. This is just coming form a usefulness standpoint. Not comparing prices at all.

Jeff81 wrote in post #7313457
what other lenses do you have?

For everyday photography I have a 60 macro, an 85 f/1.8 and a 55-250, and I also have a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 that I use pretty much exclusively for sports. I also have a Speedlite. My camera is an XTi.

Looks like you could use a little on the UWA end of things but this trade won't get you there. Really a personal choice thing then, I think as you have the 75-135 range covered with other lenses. I like the Tamron and don't know the canon lens so I don't know how they compare in quality.

[QUOTE=ceegee;7313444]​Would you exchange a Tamron 28-75 for a Canon 28-135? I have and like the Tamron, but always seem to be zoomed out to the 75 end. Also, I'm using it less for low-light photography since I got my 85 f/1.8 prime.

I have the opportunity to make a straight trade for the Canon, but am hesitating because when I do use the Tamron, I just love the colour and sharpness it produces. However, the 28-135 would be a much more useful walkabout range for me, and the IS is tempting.

Any thoughts?[/quote]

i went from the 28-135 to the tamron 28-75...to go the other way would be a backwards move, imo.

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #7313630
i went from the 28-135 to the tamron 28-75...to go the other way would be a backwards move, imo.

ed rader

Ah, thank you. That's why I was hesitating; I had a feeling this might be the case. For some reason, used 28-75s seem to sell for less than used 28-135s around here. On paper the trade seemed to be to my advantage, but in the real world it's not quite that straightforward.

ceegee wrote in post #7313692
Ah, thank you. That's why I was hesitating; I had a feeling this might be the case. For some reason, used 28-75s seem to sell for less than used 28-135s around here. On paper the trade seemed to be to my advantage, but in the real world it's not quite that straightforward.

The Tamron 28-75 is extremely good value while the Canon 28-135 has always been an expensive lens. I suppose it is because it has IS. Because you have a Sigma 70-200 2.8, you already know that IS is not really mandatory for a tele lens. Nice to have but not necessary.

Bottom line, the 28-75 has better Image Quality than the 28-135. Considering that you already have a "really good" 28-75 and a "really good" 70-200, I also think it would be wrong to downgrade to a 28-135 .

the 28-135is is more expensive than a Tamron 28-75. If you do not add money, and are not using the 28-75, you could trade it and then sell it if you don't use ...

you will get more money for a Canon lens. (assuming condition is good)

take the canon

wh1te0nr1ce wrote in post #7315666
take the canon

reason?

to the op: I had both at one point. My tamron was extremely sharp with high contrast, and I mean it looked sharper than 2 of my L's sharp. The problem was hit and miss focus, that and images from it lacked that "magic". The canon is soft, and only sharpens up decently at f8. It's so slow f-stop wise that the IS is pointless next to the f2.8. It focused much quicker and much much much more reliably than the tamron though. If you don't have any problems with the tamron's AF then I say stick with it, since you already have the long end covered. If the AF is causing you problems then u prolly should trade it for something more reliable.

I switched from tamron to 17-55 and found that tamron was sharper. I cannot imagine that 28-135 can be sharper than 17-55. I strongly suggest you not to do it.

Thanks, guys. I'm not going to do the trade. Was supposed to go and see the other lens today, but have written to the seller to cancel. As has been pointed out, the 75+ range is already covered, and it's not as if I don't like the Tamron - it's a fine lens. But the point about wider angle is also taken. We're going to the Outer Banks on vacation this summer, and it would be nice to have something a bit wider.

I personally would have done the trade, the canon 28-135 has more reach and IS, make a good walkaround.

jkokbaker wrote in post #7317497
I personally would have done the trade, the canon 28-135 has more reach and IS, make a good walkaround.

Sounds to me that the poster was more interested in IQ than reach and IS. IMHO, he made the wise choice.