Canon 30D - Walkaround zoom - Tamron 17-50 vs Tamron 28-75/Sigma 24-70

heya,

 

I recently bought a Canon 30D camera second-hand, my first dSLR (previously

owned a 800si). I also acquired a Canon 35/2.0 at the same time.

 

Anyway, I'm now looking at acquiring a second lens, hopefully a zoom. The Canon

35/2.0 is nice, but somewhat annoying - I can't go wider when doing event or

group photography, and I can't get any reach. The new lens will be a general

walk-around lens, and maybe portraiture (more a bonus).

 

Keeping in mind a tight budget, the Tamron 17-50/2.8 came highly recommended -

I'm guessing to be around US$300-$400, right?

 

However, other people also recommended the Sigma 24-70/2.8 and the Tamron 28-75/2.8.

 

I do quite a bit of low-light shooting, and I want fairly fast auto-focus, hence

the preference for fixed f2.8 aperture.

 

1. How much of a margin would the Tamron 17-50/2.8 be optically superior to the

24-70 or the 28-75? I just need an idea so I can weigh up the convenience of the

added reach of 70/75 (and the penalty of less at the wide end) versus

sharpness/contrast. Or is it just added range with no drawbacks =).

 

2. Also, any comments on the AF speed/accuracy, and build quality of these three

lenses? (The two things most important to me, I think.)

 

3. Finally, just out curiosity - for those who have used the Canon 35/2.0 - how

does this compare in sharpness/contrast to a normal 50mm lens (e.g. 50/1.8), and

to the zooms? Would I be horribly disappointed if I jumped from the 35/2.0 to a

Sigma/Tamron zoom?

 

Thanks,

Victor

I just got a Tamron 17-50. Personally I care more about the wider wide end than a longer long end (75mm equivalent is long enough). The AF is quite fast on my 20D and locks focus quite well in low light.

 

I don't know but would think the 17-50 and 28-75 are of similar optical quality but cover different ranges.

I bought a Sigma 24-70 and I ended up returning it because of focus problems and it was very soft up through f5.6. I ended up buying the canon 24-70 which is great. Since a budget is concerned, I have been told by several people and read many times here that both of those Tamron's are excellent. Just be wary of the Sigma, although mine may have just been a bad copy.

Might want to check out the results of this lens defect survey:

 

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/lens_defect_survey.html

<p>I can't comment on the quality of any of those choices. But you're asking for a walkaround zoom, and to me, only one of the three lenses you mention can be a walkaround zoom on a 1.6-crop body. 28 or 24 just isn't wide enough; I need 17 or thereabouts. You could have the world's finest lens, but if it doesn't cover the focal lengths you need, what good is it?</p>

This <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Digital-SLR-Camera-Reviews.aspx">Link</a> has reviews for all 3. As for AF speed, they won't really come close to a Canon USM, but may be acceptable, depending on what you shoot. The reviews always mention AF speed, so if you read up on the 3, you should be able to make your decision.

I'm not familiar with those lenses, and have another thought to possibly confuse you. I recently invested in the Sigma 17-70 Macro 2.8/4.5 and it is enjoying quite a bit of use as a walk-around lens on one of my XTi's (The other is pretty much full-time with the Sigma 10-20). The 17-70 has decent reviews and is giving me good results - paid about $450 Canadian for it.

I've used both Tamron 17-50 2.8 and 28-75 2.8. They are very similar in optical performance. Slightly soft at 2.8, razor sharp when stopped down to 3.2 or 3.5.

 

The Tamron 28-75mm zoom covers a strange range on crop cameras, so I would recommend the 17-50mm ($400-$450).

I bought the Tamron 17-50/2.8 at the end of last year. It is a great lens. The sharpness of the lens is fantastic. At 2.8, results are good. Stop down a 1/2 stop or more and the results are hard to beat. Look at the reviews, most rave about the sharpness.

 

The build quality is decent, but it is nothing like good, expensive "L" lenses.

 

I have the Canon 24mm for my 10D and my XTi, and it was just not wide enough. The 17mm the Tamron has is the way to go.

 

Get a telephoto or a longer, quality zoom to compliment this lens and you will be set.

<p>If you need fast focusing then you don't want th Sigma 24-70, I tried it in the shop and it was slow and noisy. I got the Sigma 17-70 as a walk around lens and it is good but not great and I'm starting to look for a bit more now. The range is good but I'm having some focus issues on occasions, that said I'm shooting fast moving action in low light so I'm asking a lot of the lens. </p>

 

<p>This was all shot with the Sigma 17-70 on a 30D with 430EX: <a href="http://www.willsphotography.com.au/swingpatrol/2007MSF/">www.willsphotography.com.au/swingpatrol/2007MSF/</a></p>

As already said, the Tamron 17-50 and the Tamron 28-75 are performing very similar. As a single lens setup, I use the 17-50, and as a two lens setup, I often use the EFS 10-22 plus the Tamron 28-75.

 

If you find the EF 35/2 a bit annoying because you cannot go any wider, you really should take the 17-50 ... the difference between 50 and 75 is not that signifficant as the difference between 17 and 28.

i am in the same situation low-light (no flash) event photography. I am considering between tamron 17-50 vs tamron 28-75. Low light and handholdability are important for me. while the 28-75 wont help me to take group photograph 17-50 is not good either in tight headshoulder shots. so i m considering tamron17-50 with canon 85 f/1.8. if its a single lens i would consider 85 f/1.8.

 

comments are welcome.

sorry i forgot to mention i have canon ef 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 zoom lens that starts at f/3.5, goes to f/4 around 37mm and

then to f/4.5 around 70mm. So in 28-37 range how much the difference ll be practcally for low light.