Tamron Lenses???

I know this is suppose to be for Canon lenses, but I have a question regarding the Tamron lenses. I have been considering upgrading from the 18-55 IS kit that came with my XSi and wanted to get something better. I have looked at the 17-55 f2.8 IS and am very impressed, but I haven't been able to get myself to purchase it. I just bought the 70-200 f4 IS so spending $900 is a little much at the moment. Eventually, I willget it and use one of these as the backup lens, but justnot now.

My question lies with the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and the 28-75 f2.8. I don't take landscape pictures and will mostly use this to take pictures of the kids. However I do have a couple of weddings coming up that I will use it for. Does the 17-50 have better optics and performance compared to the 28-75 or are they pretty much the same? Most of the pictures I take will be toward the end of the 17-50 and somewhere in the middle on the 28-75. I appreciate any views that you may have.

Thanks.

Re: Tamron Lenses???

I always find the reviews and comparisons on this sight to be helpful:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=400&Camera=396&Sample=0&am p;FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=366&CameraComp= 9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

This is a litttle strange because one image was taken with a 30D and the other witha 1D. But it should give you some idea.

Re: Tamron Lenses???

I've used both lenses quite a bit on my 40D...they are more similar than they are different...image quality at shared aperture and focal lengths is similar (and very good), while the build quality and focus speed of both lenses isn't very good. Which you choose depends on what focal length range you want.

(I'm a satisfied 28-75 owner...I've gotten the itch to upgrade to a Canon 24-70L a couple of times, but it isn't worth the money for me...)

Re: Tamron Lenses???

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document" />
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12" />
<meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 12" />
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:\Users\Mark\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\c lip_filelist.xml" />
<link rel="themeData" href="file:///C:\Users\Mark\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\c lip_themedata.thmx" />
<link rel="colorSchemeMapping" href="file:///C:\Users\Mark\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\c lip_colorschememapping.xml" />

<style>

</style>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"]<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"]I have both of these that I have
used on my XTi to shoot weddings. I started with a sigma 24-70
f2.8. The Tamron 28-75 f2.8 was a big improvement over the sigma. I
shoot weddings and have made many 16x20 bridal portraits from both
lenses. I have found the 28-75 f2.8 to not be quite wide enough in small
dressing rooms with the bride. I think the build quality and image quality
are slightly better with the 17-50 f2.8 but so close it is hard to say for
sure. If you every upgrade to a full frame you will not be able to use
the 17-50 f2.8.<span> I find the auto focus to
be fast and work well in low light.<span> I
prefer the 28-75 f2.8 for portraits for the depth of field. Both of these lenses are very good at controlling lens flare.<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"]<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"]I have since upgraded to the Canon
EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM and it is a significant step up from the Tamrons but
if your budget can not afford the canon lens then I highly recommend either of
these lenses.<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"]<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"]<o:p></o:p>

Re: Tamron Lenses???

In what way is the Canon 24-105 an upgrade to these lenses? Better optical quality? Better build quality? Or are you just speaking to the IS feature?

Re: Tamron Lenses???

I replaced my XSi kit lense with a Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 and have been very pleased. I intend this to be my only non full frame compatable lense. I hope to stick with "L"s from here on out. That being the case I probably won't be upgrading or adding to my collection for a while. [:(]

Re: Tamron Lenses???

All of the above. Sharper, faster focus, build quality and IS. The two Tamron lenses mentioned are better at avoiding lense flare but the Canon 24-105 is good here just not quite as good.

Re: Tamron Lenses???

Have you considered Tokina lenses?

http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/index.html

Re: Tamron Lenses???

The Tokina lenses aren't really in the same class as the offerings from
Canon and Tamron here...the Tokina 16-50 isn't as sharp as the Tamron 17-50 (and by extension the Canon 17-55), and the distortion at the wide end is noticably worse. There are some real gems in the Tokina lineup (the 50-135 f/2.8 and 12-24 f/4), but their "normal" lenses aren't the greatest.

Re: Tamron Lenses???

<span style="font-size: 7pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif';"]

<span style="color: black;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"]I just got my Tamron 17-50 and let me say that I am truly impressed. This is a definite step up from the kit lens and I was using the IS kit lens. Sure it isn't the Canon 17-55 IS, but it is pretty awesome. I couldn't believe how sharp it was. I wanted the Canon 17-55 IS, but couldn't spend the extra $500 for the IS. I figured that was more valuable on the longer telephoto lenses. One thing I was pleasantly surprised about was the focusing distance. It is close, probably 4 inches. I never got that close with anything other than my 100mm macro before. I had no clue I could use this lens for my jewelry photography. For a sub $400 lens, again, pleasantly surprised.<o:p></o:p>

<span style="color: black;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"]Thanks for everyone who contributed to this thread. Now time to save up for the 300f4 IS or the 24-105f4 IS. Still on the fence with this one.