# Tamron 17-50 f2.8 or Tamron 28-75 f2.8



## ryan_caldero (Sep 14, 2011)

Lookin to adding a fast lens that I would use for portraits/low light. I already have a Fifty Nifty, but tired of moving back and fourth to get the right frame. I am not sure which lens would be better? I am leaning over to the 17-50 cuz of the wide angle, but knowing i have a cropped sensor it is going to be at about 26mm rather than 17mm (some where around there), but would like to hear what others think. I have a budget at about $700 smackers!


----------



## jaomul (Sep 14, 2011)

I have same camera and if I was choosing it would be the 17-50


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 14, 2011)

On your camera, the 17-50mm....unless you think you may upgrade to something like a 5D someday.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Sep 14, 2011)

See if you can find the 17-50 used, should be able to for less than $400, then you have $300 for other stuff you probably need and if you do end up going full frame down the road you won't lose much if anything.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Sep 14, 2011)

I was faced with EXACTLY the same question.. (excpet I shoot as Crop frame Nikon) and I eventually went with the 17-50.  Just seemed like a more useful range for me.

I am not at all disappointed with the lens.  Its tack sharp, lightning fast and decently made.  Buy it with confidence.


----------



## Overread (Sep 14, 2011)

*moving to equipment subsection*


----------



## ryan_caldero (Sep 14, 2011)

Stradawhovious said:


> I was faced with EXACTLY the same question.. (excpet I shoot as Crop frame Nikon) and I eventually went with the 17-50.  Just seemed like a more useful range for me.
> 
> I am not at all disappointed with the lens.  Its tack sharp, lightning fast and decently made.  Buy it with confidence.



I have heard that the motor is a bit loud, not that it would be a deal breaker with me cuz i can careless, but i am curious did it happen to be noticeably loud?


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 14, 2011)

I have the Tamron 17-50mm, and it is louder than a Canon USM lens, but it's not so loud that it's ever been a problem.


----------



## ryan_caldero (Sep 14, 2011)

Big Mike said:


> I have the Tamron 17-50mm, and it is louder than a Canon USM lens, but it's not so loud that it's ever been a problem.



I read somewhere that the VC -model has some loss of image quality compared to the NON VC... True? Would I even benefit much with having VC with this lens?


----------



## orb9220 (Sep 14, 2011)

The sharpness difference is noticeable to pixel peepers. And then there is that Body-Lens matching variations that can impact sharpness on some mismatching.

But otherwise the VC will give you another stop or two for Static non-moving subjects. And also has a larger 82mm awkward filter size. For me don't see it worth the extra $150 as my older non-VC been a great performer.

And mine not noisy barely noticeable at all for me. People that complaining are exaggerating about the Noise sounds. Yep wouldn't hesitate used for $325-$375 for  a used one. Mine was used and been performing great for last 3 yrs. Then would have some cash left for other.

As to the 17-50 vs. 28-75 issue. If I was a wedding/portrait would probably go the 28-75. But more flexible and need for wider makes the 17-50 my choice. As I can feet zoom the 50-75 difference. But if needing wider then your stuck or have to change to another lens.
.


----------



## ryan_caldero (Sep 14, 2011)

orb9220 said:


> The sharpness difference is noticeable to pixel peepers. And then there is that Body-Lens matching variations that can impact sharpness on some mismatching.
> 
> But otherwise the VC will give you another stop or two for Static non-moving subjects. And also has a larger 82mm awkward filter size. For me don't see it worth the extra $150 as my older non-VC been a great performer.
> 
> ...



dude thanks for your opinion... Now I am starting to think I can just get the NON VC version for my Canon 50D and save me some chippers (money) to pick up an extra Canon 430ex and get rid of this shot out 420EX.


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 15, 2011)

I haven't had a chance to see the VC version, but I have also heard that it may not be as sharp as the non-VC version.  My problem with it is price.  It's something like &750-$800 (or at least it was)....and at that price, I'd be very temped to just jump up to the Canon 17-55mm F2.8 IS, which has outstanding image quality.


----------



## ryan_caldero (Sep 15, 2011)

Big Mike said:


> I haven't had a chance to see the VC version, but I have also heard that it may not be as sharp as the non-VC version.  My problem with it is price.  It's something like &750-$800 (or at least it was)....and at that price, I'd be very temped to just jump up to the Canon 17-55mm F2.8 IS, which has outstanding image quality.



The amazonian (amazon) has it for 650 with a 50 mail in rebate for the VC version. If it was 8 c-notes i would rather just save up a few chips and eat top ramen for a month to get the canon version.


----------

