Thinking of upgrading a lens

[allenlennon]

Hi all, since i already got some more flashes i been thinking of saving up a bit for a new lens instead of using the stock standard lens. At the moment i been looking at the Tamron SP AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD IF MACRO lens, as it is with in my budget, and was wandering if this is a decent lens for a general all rounder, especially for portraits?? And my camera is a canon 60D

[gregj1763]

I have two Tamron lenses Allen, the 90mm f/2.8 macro and my all rounder the 18-270 mm f/3.5-6.3. Both I am happy with, especially the 90mm macro.
Honestly I don't think you can go too far wrong with a Tamron lens.
Check out the review link below.
Cheers mate

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

[rpcrowe]

I have not specifically used the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens but, my 90mm f/2.8 Tamron AF SP lens is quite good.

I can however, comment on the short side of the Tamron 28-75mm lens. My first DSLR lens was a 28-135mm Canon f/3.5-5.6 IS for a Canon 10D and the 28mm side is not as wide as I would like on a crop camera. However, I combined it with a 12-24mm f/4 Tokina and that combination worked quite well.

My present mid-range zoom is a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens and I love it. Tamron has a 17-50mm f/2.8 VC lens that I would assume would be very much like my 17-55mm; in that the focal range is almost the same, each has a constant f2.8 aperture and my 17-55mm lens is equipped with IS while the Tamron is equipped with the comparable VC. These capabilities are important to me...

The 17mm short side is quite wide enough for most of my shooting. However, the 55mm long side is not quite as long as I would like. And that would also be true of the 50mm of the Tamron 17-50mm lens. I make up for this difficiency in focal range by pairing the mid range zoom with a 70-200mm f/4L IS. A 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Tamron VC lens would be (IMO) a nice combination with the Tamron 17-50mm. I don't miss the 55-70mm gap between the two lenses. I cannot say if you would miss the 50-70mm gap between the Tamron 17-50mm and the 70-300mm lenses.

OTOH, the 75mm side of the Tamron you are considering might be long enough for your uses and the nice thing about the 28mm side is, although it may not be wide enough for some venues, there is very little distortion when shooting at that focal length, except when shooting head and shoulders portraits. IMO, you could shoot from the widest end to the longest end without worrying that your images would suffer from distortion because of the focal length. The 75mm side would be a decent focal length for head and shoulder portraits, although I shoot my portraits with my focal length from 100-150mm on a 1.6x camera. However, I do like longer focal lengths. than many photographers, for portraits, especially portraits of women since I consider the longer focal lengths more flattering...

[DanK]

general all rounder, especially for portraits??

Allen,

You didn't way which lens you would be replacing, which is an important part of the question.

I have owned that lens for years, and for portraits and candids of people, it is an excellent lens on a crop sensor camera. It's my standard for that purpose. However, I would not consider it an all-rounder for my uses, because it has no wide-angle range. ('Normal' on a crop is around 28-32 mm). The shorter cousin (Tamron 17-50 NON VC) would give you the wide angle, but it is in my opinion short at the long end for portraits and candids.

My solution has been to use this lens for people and a different lens (EF-S 15-85) as my outdoor walk around lens.

I'll post a couple of candids that I took with the Tamron 28-75 and a 50D.

Dan

[RustBeltRaw]

I'm also a Canon 60D user, and I'd echo Dan's point that 28mm is a little narrow for a walkabout lens on a crop camera. My Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM is my least-used lens, but it still comes with me everywhere. Depending on your budget, Canon's EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 is a very good focal range, and broadly considered one of the higher-quality, but less well-known lenses in Canon's range. 1100USD new or 850USD from B&H. It's definitely pushing your suggested budget, but it's a significant upgrade.

[Brev00]

When I was in your boat, I considered the 28-75 but went with the Sigma 17-70. I wanted the wide side and gave up the fixed 2.8 ap to also get the longer side you also seem to like. I thought the Tamron was a bit dated since it lacked stabilization and used the old bim focusing technology. I would not worry too much about the lack of a wide angle if you don't need it for your style of shooting or if you have a 12-24 type wide angle that can take up the slack at the wide end. For my style of shooting, starting at 17 has been perfect. Sigma has a brand new C version of the 17-70 that has been getting some good reviews. It is also pretty affordable with the newer one about $100 more at $499 than my older version.

[davidedric]

I too have the Sigma 17-70, on a 600D, and have been very happy with it.

[tclune]

Let me raise a contrary view to the emerging majority. I have the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and use it as my standard zoom on my D5000. I find it an absolutely wonderful lens. Probably three quarters of my photos are taken with it. I also have a Tokina 12-24 f/4, which is also a terrific lens. I like this division of focal lengths because I find the wide end requires me to approach a photograph with quite a different mind set than I use with a standard focal length. So, for me, switching lenses as I get into wider focal lengths is a good reminder to switch compositional gears, too. As always, YMMV.

[Brev00]

That is not contradicting what I said. I also said that having a 12-24 type lens would marry well with the 28-75 giving the Tamron the wide coverage it lacks. Having the Tokina 12-24 is a good choice nevertheless. I got one and it goes well with my 17-70, too!