Which lens? Can't make decision

Hello,

 

I cannot decide between the Canon 17-85mm IS USM f 4-5.6 lens versus Tamron

SP AF 28-75mm f 2.8. Both are around the same price.

 

I am mostly going to shoot landscapes with a tripod at around 50mm. I read the

reviews and each lens has pros and cons of course. But, in the end, I cannot

figure out which one will deliver the best picture.

 

Does anyone have a thought between the two? Is the fast 2.8 really that much of

a benefit compared to the f4 on the Canon?

 

Thanks for any help!

 

Michael

Canon 17-85mm isn't compatible with full frame body, more expensive, and based on reviews, the Tamron offers good IQ if you get a good copy.

-- "But, in the end, I cannot figure out which one will deliver the best picture."

 

For general use, the image quality will be better with the Tamron. For landscape shots (stopped down to f/8 ... f/11) this is still the case, albeit not very obvious.

 

-- "Is the fast 2.8 really that much of a benefit compared to the f4 on the Canon?"

 

Don't forget, that the Canon lens is f/5.6 most of the range. (The f/4 is only available from 17mm up to about 24.). Yes it is indeed a difference ... but not for your usecase.

 

As a general alround lens, the Canon is more useful than the Tamron. It has a better range (especially a noticably wider short end), and it has IS. Anyhow, if your needs are as described, you'll be better off with the Tamron. But if your main use is 50mm ... why not get the EF 50/1.8 instead. (Its better tan both (at 50mm) and its cheaper.)

-- "Is the fast 2.8 really that much of a benefit compared to the f4 on the Canon?"

 

I forgot one thing ... yes, there is a difference, even for your usecase ... the viewfinder will be brighter with the f/2.8 lens. Also, high-precision AF points will be activated with f/2.8 (and faster) lenses only.

I use the 17-85 for landscape (see my gallery) and am happy with the image quality. As the reviews point out, the image quality isn't the best, but in terms of range, versatility, and overall usability, I don't think the 17-85 can be beat without spending at least twice the price.

 

<Chas>

"I am mostly going to shoot landscapes with a tripod at around 50mm"

 

If you don't need wide-angle like 17mm or tele why not try Prime. It will be fast and sharp. You could always use your legs as zoom to gain some focal lengths around 50mm.