Pennington wrote in post #10157923
I just sold my 28-135 IS - the range was great, but I wanted a faster aperture for better low light performance and shallow DOF. I tried out a used Tamron 28-75, but it had focus issues
, so it's going back. And I'm not sure how I feel about its plasticy build.
Pennington wrote in post #10159994
Let me rephrase: my issue is that without my 28-135, I'm missing what I consider to be my "standard range" walk-around lens. I have a 17-35L on the wide end, and will be getting a 70-200L for the long. But I'm trying to figure out what to do about that empty 35-70mm range
. (I do have a 50mm f/1.8, but I don't think it's versatile enough to plug the hole
I only reach for the lens in this range about 35%
of the time, so it's not a critical range for me. But I think I have to have something to fill it for when I need it. I'd like something with at least constant f/4.
Thanks for clarifying. Let's take another crack at this.
You said you shoot "portraits/commercial/nature". "Commercial" can be anything, so let's look at portraits and nature.
For portraits, most people shoot either "shallow-DOF-head-and-shoulder" or "whole-body environmental". For the former, the 70-200 is perfect, but you might not get enough background-blurring, depending on which of the 5 70-200Ls you get. The 50/1.8 would be perfect for that, or you can consider getting a 85/1.8. None of the "standard" zooms will be great, although the F2.8 on the 17-55 or the 24-70 can do in a pinch. For "whole-body environmental" portraits, the 17-35L should be great. In short, you don't need a standard zoom for portraits (if you are going to get anything, consider a 85/1.8 ).
For nature, again, it depends on what type of nature you shoot. Wide-angle scenery? Long-range-wildlife? Birds? Insects and flowers? Nature requires many different type of lenses. For wildlife and birds, even the 70-200 might not be long enough -- a 100-400 may be more appropriate. For insects and flowers, you might want to consider a macro lens. For wide-angle scenery, the 17-35L would be great on FF, but may not be wide enough on crop. Consider the 10-22. What's the emerging common theme? What you are missing is NOT around the 35-70mm gap.
Let's think about this from another angle.
35-70 is really NOT a big gap. By taking a few steps forward/backward and/or cropping a bit, it's not hard to fill the gap. Many people consider using 3 primes (the Holy Trinity: 35mm, 85mm, 135mm) for ALL of their photographic needs. The gaps between the Holy Trinity lenses are a lot bigger than your 35-70 gap (not to mention you actually have the 50/1.8 smack in the middle of the gap, plus the 28-75 which covered it completely).
So, ask yourself why you still feel the need to have something in the gap. I'm guessing, but I see 2 possibilities:
1. You are constantly changing between wide-angle and short-tele, and you are not fond of changing lenses with every shot. You said "I only reach for the lens in this range about 35% of the time, so it's not a critical range for me." May I remind you that 35% is more than 1/3 of the time, which is a lot? Maybe you do need a "normal" zoom. Consider the 17-55 or 24-70 if you must have F2.8. If you don't, consider the 15-85 or 24-105. (I'm not mentioning 3rd party zooms because you found fault with both Tamron and Sigma -- I'm sure you won't like Tokina either.)
2. You don't really need anything, period. You simply have lens lust for one of the lenses you mentioned.
Only you know which is which. Think about it and you'll have your answer.