Help me decide Canon 28 1.8 or Tamron 70-300 VC

<p>I have $500 to spend on a new lens. I see the adds for the new Tamron 70-300 VC which since I went full frame with the Canon 5D Mark II I feel I have lost the extra reach I had when shooting with Canon 30D. I very seldom use my Sigma 70-200 F2.8 mainly because it's just tooo big to carry often. The lens I use most in studio is my Tamron 28-75 F2.8. For a walk around lens and street photography I use the Canon 50 1.8 or sometimes the 85 1.2L (seldom because of size). I think the lens I would really use a lot would be a 35 F2.0 or 28 1.8 to assist in low light video and street photo.<br>

I find the price range, IQ, VC of the Tamron to be very appealing @$399. Tamron has an advantage because it gives me a range I don't already have and none of my current lenses have Image stablization. However, it is slow and has the drawback of almost a 6 foot minimal focus distance. The Canon 28 has the drawback of being a range I already have but advantages are it's small, fast and I would use it a lot more often as I could always have it with me.<br>

PS - I don't plan on upgrading Tamron to Canon 24-70 F2.8L until a new version comes out. Would rather have Tamron backed by primes 28, 50, 85 eventually 100 macro. The Sigma is trash now and will get replaced with something. My tests have shown this lens falls short on the Canon 5D2 and is not equivelent to the Canon zooms. Not sure If I want to spend that much for Canon 70-200 F2.8 because I don't mind using tripods and slower shutter speeds. Tamron might be good enough replacement for Sigma since I don't really shoot much at this range. Thoughts?<br>

Camera 5D Mark II<br>

Canon 85 1.2L I<br>

Canon 50 1.8<br>

Canon 17-40 F4L<br>

Tamron 28-75 F2.8<br>

Sigma 70-200 F2.8</p>

<p>I guess it sorta depends on whether you want to shoot a wide-angle prime or a new, slightly longer, regular telephoto zoom, doesn't it?</p>

<p>Once you figure out which of these vastly different alternatives you want, all will become clear.</p>

<p>;)</p>

<p>The answer is pretty obvious if you think about it.</p>

<p>If your photographic need is primarily for a wide angle prime then the 28mm f/1.8 could work. If your need is for a telephoto zoom covering the 70-300mm range, then the Tamron is one possibility.</p>

<p>Right? ;-)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Maybe sell the Sigma and get a 70-200/4L IS?</p>

<p>Of the choice you describe I'd probably say neither until you really know what you want.</p>

<p>On the lenses themselves:<br>

The 28/1.8 certainly has it's fans but reviews (I don't have it myself) are mixed.</p>

<p>The Tamron might be good but in the same range the Canon EF 70-300 is pretty good too. Why not that one?</p>

<p>All the best, Matthijs.</p>

<p>The phrases you use suggest you will find more use for the 28mm.</p>

<p>The reason I am having this delima is I really don't "Need" either of them. I'm trying to determine which would be the most benificial to my existing setup at this price range. I'm looking for a low priced lens which will add some new looks to my work. I would be happy with either but agree with Mike based on the direction I am going I am leaning towards the Canon 28 1.8. I am kind of outgrowing third party lenses and have my heart set on L-lenses. But, until I can afford them I think the primes may be a better choice because of their speed. The reviews seem to say the Tamron is much better than the Canon 70-300 IS non-L and compares to the 70-300 L (which I can't afford anyway). I am thinking of saving my money and eventually just upgrading the Sigma to an Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS II.</p>

<p>I would Highly consider the 50 1.4 Sigma. The first thing you would probably do is send it in to get calibrated, but then it's a very good lens. Much better than the 50 1.4 Canon...</p>

<p>My other choice would be the Canon 28 1.8. That is also a good lens. It does vignette a little on FF.</p>

<p>I am also a fan of Canon and don't really like third party lenses at all but still like the sigma 50 1.4 over the canon 50 1.4...</p>

 

<p>Considering what you already have and what you intend to buy later: I see more in a "<em>low priced lens which will add some new looks to my work [ . . .] to assist in low light video and street photo."</em> - in the EF20/2.8.<br>

(Solely depending upon how "low light" low light actually is).</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>I'd sit tight on the money until I had a need. You have a good range of lenses already. </p>

I would buy nothing until I figure out what exactly the look I'm after is, and what about my current arsenal prevents me from achieving that look.

<p>50 1.4 is too close to what I already have in 50 1.8. EF 20 2.8 is not fast enough of a prime for me. I want to be able to shoot video with a battery powered LED light panesl. Eventually, I will pickup a 35mm maybe a fast MF Zeiss lens. No one seems to be saying anything good about the Tamron 70-300?<br>

Samples of my existing work can be seen at <a href="http://patrickwheaton.com">http://patrickwheaton.com</a></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"2.8 is not fast enough of a prime for me. I want to be able to shoot video with a battery powered LED light panesl. Eventually, I will pickup a 35mm maybe a fast MF Zeiss lens."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then with these added comments, JW is correct. Save like crazy; add it to the $500 you have already; and buy what you really want.</p>

<p>WW</p>

John Wright , Dec 15, 2010; 06:30 p.m.

"I'd sit tight on the money until I had a need. You have a good range of lenses already."

 

Ditto.

Well I guess if I don't know which one I really need I don't need either. I already have a 28 f2.8 and I very seldom

ever shoot at 200mm so don't really need a 300mm. It is nearly impossible to shoot video without a tripod so VC is

not really an asset to me either. The 70 - 300 is not really an upgrade or replacement to sigma 70-200 F2.8. Damn,

that was a close one. Thanks for talking me out of that one good call. Neither of those lenses is going to help me get

more clients or make a noticeable difference to my work and I really don't need any more equipment. I would probably

benefit more from taking a photography or lighting seminar.

 

Thanks