# Tamron 17-50mm or 28-70mm f/2.8



## 1000DUser (Jul 30, 2010)

Hey everyone, im looking into investing into a lens to replace my kit lens  so i've been lookin around and came down to this 2 as conclusions, the Canon one is too expensive for me so i decided to go with 3rd parties its either the 

28-70mm  or the 17-55mm 

I go for events and travel abit so yeah i take landscapes at time but more of potraits and people. should i use my kit lens as a wide angle until i get a wide angle lens and then go with the 28-70 or replace my kit lens with a 17-55mm and hope 17mm is wide enough for landscapes? 

Btw im usin a aps-c dslr.


----------



## Dao (Jul 30, 2010)

Beside kit lens, do you own any other lens as well?

I have the Tamron 17-50mm lens and that is my walk around lens.  17mm is fine most of the time as far as wide concern. (At least for me).  And I usually bring along with one prime lens with me as well.

Example, these photos were taken at 17mm.


----------



## Idahophoto (Jul 30, 2010)

I have used both of these lenses, the 17-50 I have had in both Nikon and Canon mounts so I can say there both fantastic lenses. I went with the 17-50 couse of the wide angle if I had a full frame I would or probably of gone with the 28-70. But it's a tough call either way. Both have incredible image quality, I had enjoyed the 17-50 on my Nikon so moving to Canon it was a no brainer rebuying it in this mount but could of gone the other do to buying the Takina 12-24 F/4 ( I highly recommend ) for the wide side. Still I have nore regrets and no matter what choice you go with I don't think you will either.


----------



## 1000DUser (Jul 30, 2010)

Those are very nice pictures, and i wanna thank you both for your response. @Dao : I just started so i dont have any great lens yet, still with a 55mm f1.8 as a prime and my telephoto 55-250mm IS. Just wondering is 17mm enough for a wide angle? is it pointless to then get a 11-16 tokina / 10-22mm canon


----------



## Dao (Jul 30, 2010)

If you are not planning to go with full frame camera anytime soon, I will suggest going with the 17-50mm since it is slightly optically better (from what I read).

Yes, if you really want to go wider, those ultra wide angle DX zoom lenses are good like those you mentioned.  Of course, Sigma has the 10-20mm lens also very popular. Is it pointless to get the ultra wide angle lens?  Of course not, I love those EXTRA wide landscape views. 

Check this site out :  10-20mm.com
That site packs with great wide angle images taken with the 10-20mm lens.

I am still debating whether I should sell my 14mm prime lens and get the 10-20mm.


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 30, 2010)

24-70mm is an odd focal length for a crop body camera, IMO.  24mm just isn't wide enough.  
If you complement it with a wide angle lens, such as the Canon 10-22mm or Sigma 10-20mm, it might be a good pair though.


----------



## 1000DUser (Jul 30, 2010)

Okay, i mean in the future im bound to invest into a wide angle lets say the tokina 11-16 or the 10-22 canon i heard the sigma's focus is terrible. since ill be investing into a wide angle soon enough should i go with the 28-70mm first? btw anyone experience on the 10-20mm sigma?


----------



## invisible (Jul 30, 2010)

1000DUser said:


> Okay, i mean in the future im bound to invest into a wide angle lets say the tokina 11-16 or the 10-22 canon i heard the sigma's focus is terrible. since ill be investing into a wide angle soon enough should i go with the 28-70mm first? btw anyone experience on the 10-20mm sigma?


I purchased the Sigma 10-20 and returned it due to its absolutely dismal autofocus performance --lots of hunting. Aside from that, I thought the Sigma 10-20 was a terrific lens. Ended up buying the Tokina 11-16 and I haven't looked back: it's sharper, faster, and better built than the Sigma. My buddy has the Canon 10-22 and has produced photos of an amazing image quality with it. If I were a Canon shooter, I'd buy that one --despite my love for the Tokina.

If you're positive that you will be buying a wide-angle lens down the road, then the lens you should buy now is the Tamron 28-75: fast, light, relatively small, ultra-sharp, short minimum-focusing distance (it's labeled as macro, but macro it is not), and more-than-reasonably priced. Plus, it's a full-frame lens so it's future proof (I use it on a D700). It's not really built like a tank, though.

Good luck with your search.


----------



## 1000DUser (Jul 31, 2010)

Yes im positive about going wide angle in the future. im a canon user so its either the tokina 11-16mm like you mentioned or the 10-22mm canon, what i dont like about the canon is that it doesnt have a constant aperture. i think ill be going with the 28-70mm for now and shoot wide angles with my kit lens, btw does the tammy 17-55 and 28-70mm have any backfocusing problem? i read up a few reviews online and they say it does have a backfocusing problem.


----------



## dimwit (Jul 31, 2010)

Here's a few from the 28-75.




















Feel free to construe any negatives in the above as operator error....:er:


----------



## iAstonish (Jul 31, 2010)

I'd suggest the 17-50mm. Even if you get a wide angle in the future it will only compliment the 17-50mm, not replace it. The 28-70mm is an odd focal length on a crop body like big mike said. You give up 11mm of wideness in return for 20mm of focal length. You could always take a few steps forward to make up for the extra 20mm, but it's not the same with the width. You can't really replicate the perspective a wide angle lens will give you.


----------



## supraman215 (Oct 5, 2010)

I don't know if you already made a decision but I wouldn't automatically assume that 28 is going to be too tight for a walk around lens. 

I've been searching the forum about the 28-75 f2.8 tamron since that's the lens I'm currently looking at. I saw a previous review someone did about this lens, 2 years ago. He said that Big Mike said the same thing "Big Mike told me 24 is too tight for walking around and I should have listened to him." (this is all when speaking of crop sensors of course) Well as his sig indicates Big Mike *does* know what he's talking about, but I wondered if this was true for me. I have the 18-105 zoom and I went back and looked at some of my favorite pics that I took with that lens, in the past few months and they are all 35mm or tighter (that's the original focal length not the DX adjusted one) So it may depend on what kind of "walk around" shooting you do. For me it's mostly of my daughter and family. So I don't THINK it will be too tight for me based on my analysis. But I'm going to do some more.


----------

