Tamaron 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 for the Rebel XT

[ibcrewin]

I looked for some reviews of this lens but didn't find anything. Is a

cheapo lens that should be avoided or is it still pretty decent to

take about town? I want to upgrade my zoom capabilities but don't

have the coin to do it. Should I save for another year and get the

canon 28-105?

 

Thanks!

[sonny_jet]

If you like the focal range then you can save up and perhaps go for one of the 2X - 70 f2.8 Zooms offered by Canon, Sigma and Tamron (prioced I think between 600-1100 dollars) These have a fixed low aperture meaning they will perform better in low light situations comapred to your current zoom. Also, their bokeh (rendition of out-of-focus area) will be nicer too.

 

However, first off, use your current zoom and see how you get on. I believe it gives you view of a 45-128mm. Use it and see how you find the focal range. If you need a fast (better in low light conditions) lens then you can't go wrong by going for a 50mm f1.8 (around a hundred dollars) . It will give you a view of an 80mm lens and is good for portraiture.

 

Good luck

 

ps. I don't think the Canon 28-105 will be a WHOLE LOT better than your current lens.

[andrew robertson]

Get a prime lens or two. However, the EF 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 is a very sharp little lens, and

should not be lumped in the same category as 28/35-80 f/x-5.6 slower zooms.

[kbroderick]

My 2 cents: I own the aforementioned Tamron 28-80 f/3.5-5.6, and I've had it on the

camera once. My other lenses are a Tamron 18-200 Di-II, a Canon 50mm f/1.8 MkII, and

a Tamron 19-35 f/3.5-4.5. My Tamron 70-300 is in for warranty service at this point. Of

those lenses, I've found myself disinclined to use any but the 18-200 and the 50mm since

I got the 18-200. The 18-200 isn't particularly sharp or particularly fast, but neither are

the 28-80 or 70-300 (err, it might be a 75-300; it's a relatively cheap lens, if that

differentiates at all). The 18-200 is a great lens for hiking, shooting in snow (when I really

don't want to be taking off a lens to change them), and the like; the 50 is generally sharp

and faster than any zoom available. If I want a higher-speed lens in the 35-70 range, the

50 is often close enough to get away with it, and the 19-35 fills the lower end rather

nicely if needed (I think it's a bit sharper than the 18-200, but I need to go compare them

side-by-side for a more definitive answer on that).

 

In short, I think I'm probably going to sell the 28-80 before too long. I don't find it to

have any compelling benefits over the 18-200, and it feels cheap in my hands. For

someone looking to get cheap glass to use for a little while before they decide which good

glass to buy, I'd strongly recommend the 18-200. It's not fast, it's not especially sharp,

but it's incredibly light and convenient (and it's reasonably cheap).

[yakim_peled1]

<P> As I see it, spending a lot on a body and little on lenses is - photographically - a <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#whichdigitallens">very silly move</a>. You have a great body capable of delivering excellent pictures and you plan on buying a lens that will not let it show its full potential and deliver only mediocre pictures? It's like buying an excellent stereo system and attach it to a lousy speakers. A sheer waste of money. </P>

 

<P> Step 1: Buy the 50/1.8. <br>

Step 2: Save and buy yourself some decent lenses. I advise you to avoid any <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#kitlenses">cheapies</a> or <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#28200">hyperzooms</a>, from any company. As always, YGWYPF.</P>

 

<P> Happy shooting , <br>

Yakim. </P>