AT, help me pick a first lens!

[bondboy]

Newbie starting out, so I would appreciate advice from you experts out there.

Going to get an XTi body, but the hard part now is figuring out what lens to get. After much research at fredmiranda, photography-on-the-net, and some various other websites, here's the list I came up with:

*Tamron SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)
*Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC macro
*Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

If you have other lenses that you recommend for someone starting out, feel free to mention them.

I'm looking for a good walkabout lens that will likely be the only lens used for awhile. Still got lots of learn. Also trying not to break the bank here, so no "L" glass please. (If you can find me an L lens for <$400, please PM me!) I don't know how I like to shoot yet, so the range covered by the lens above seems like a good starting point.

Currently, not considering primes, just because I feel zoom is better for starting out. But I'll definitely consider the 50mm f/1.8 sometime later in the future.

Question #1: How important is the full frame vs APS feature?
(Tamron and Sigma are both meant for smaller dSLRs)

Question #2: Any good deals on these lens anywhere?

Thanks!

 

[Brainonska511]

To start, I just got an XT (about 3 weeks ago) and instead of the kit lens; I got a cheap Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8-4 just to start off with and get an idea of how far I want to take this.

This summer, I'm planning on getting the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8;it will be good to have a good aperture across the whole zoom range. And from what I've read, the Tamron lens is a great lens, especially at the price it is sold at. BTW, that Tamron lens is actually designed for Full-Frame film and dSLRs, the Di II lenses are for the smaller sized sensors (1.6 crop body).

I thought about going with the Canon 28-135mm IS, but it is kind of slow, especially for the occasional indoor shooting I do. I guess the IS could make up for that, but only so much. Plus, I'm contemplating maybe getting a 70-200mm f/4L lens if I want more than 75mm in zoom.

I don't have an opinion on the Sigma lens you are looking at. Certainly good for the amount of wide-angle it gives you over the other 2, but you do loose the nice 2.8 aperture over the range of zoom. Though, with the Canon and Tamron lenses, you lose the wide-angle as 28mm is almost normal on a crop-body. My plan to compensate for this short coming is to pick up a Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 lens as well for wide-angle purposes.

As far as currently running specials, Tamron has a $10 rebate running till 8/31 on the 28-75mm f/2.8 lens, but beyond that, can't really help you. Also, I remember one forum member expressing a desire to sell his sharp copy of the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. I'll see if I can dig up which user it was.

Edit:
The user interested in selling his Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is jamesbond007. Send him a PM if you're interested: link

 

[montanafan]

If the Tamron SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 gives you the maximum aperture throughout it's range, which I believe it does, I'd go with it. The Sigma only gives you f/2.8 in the wide angle shots.

 

[GTaudiophile]

28mm is not wide enough on a 1.6x crop camera like the XT! It's fine on full-frame but not on APS-C. 28mm on APS-C is like 45mm on a full-frame.

Get the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 instead ($439) or maybe even the Canon 17-85 IS for $515. The Tamron is a sharper lens/better optically, but the Canon is a good single starter lens, offering IS and more reach.

Another option is the Sigma 18-50 F2.8 EX DC Macro for $419. (Make sure you consider the Macro version of this lens only.)

 

[IeraseU]

I vote for the Sigma 17-70 or if money is no object the Canon 17-55 IS (not listed in poll).

 

[beatle]

Used 17-85 IS for $449 @ keh.com. If you don't like it you can always send it back, no questions asked. The 17-70 Sigma is not a bad lens, but once you have IS, you'll find it hard to live without it. I also agree that 28mm isn't wide enough for a walkaround zoom on a crop camera.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: montanafan
If the Tamron SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 gives you the maximum aperture throughout it's range, which I believe it does, I'd go with it. The Sigma only gives you f/2.8 in the wide angle shots.

I bought a used Tamrom lens from Fredmiranda.. and the sharpness of this $285 lens makes me ashamed of the money I spent on a Canon L lens. Its a very good lens... but can't really comment on the overall quality of the line since I have only touched 1 of these. But I have nerver heard any complaints on this lens.

The only issue is the 28mm may not be wide enough for you. I think others have also mentions the 17-50mm version of this lens.

 

[randomlinh]

Tamron 17-50.

 

[ElFenix]

other, because the lens to get is the tamron 17-50 f/2.8.

there is a reason the kit lens is an 18-55.

 

[bondboy]

Thanks for all the advice, and for pointing out that the 28-75 is also usable on full frame bodies. The tamron 17-50 is a Di II right? So only available on APS-C bodies? Also, it's a bit more expensive than all the options I am considering. The 28-75 and the Sigma are both around mid-$300s, but the 17-50 is almost $100 more. Not sure if my pockets are deep enough... trying to keep it below $400. the 28-135 is just a tad over $400, but it might be worth it for the extra range, IS and USM. Although, I think image quality won't necessarily match the tamron...

No one has any experiences with the sigma 17-70? Would like to hear some more opinions on that. Especially compared with tamron.

Appreciate the help guys...

 

[ElFenix]

28 is going to leave you with no wide angle. you're missing a huge chunk of very good photography. i have the tamron 28-75 and a sigma 10-20 and i'm really missing that 20-28 gap. there are a lot of pictures that go right in there.

 

[ProfJohn]

I am not familiar with the Canon kits, but I would look at kit and what lens if comes with.

I bought the Nikon D70s with the kit because it came with a $400 lens (18-70) for only an extra $200, obviously a great deal over buying the body by itself.
Look at the kit lens and its stand alone price in order to get an idea if you are getting a good deal or not.

If the Canon is full frame then getting all the way down to 18 is not that big of a deal, the Nikon essentially magnifies everything by 1.5 so an 18 is really a 27. This is great when working with the zoom, not so great when trying to take a picture in your living room.

Random shot for this post. Night launch of the Shuttle.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
28 is going to leave you with no wide angle. you're missing a huge chunk of very good photography. i have the tamron 28-75 and a sigma 10-20 and i'm really missing that 20-28 gap. there are a lot of pictures that go right in there.

That's why I sold my EF 24-105 F4L IS for a 17-55 F2.8 IS.

 

[Anubis]

im gonna agree with everyone and say that 28m is totally not wide enough on a Camera with a crop factor of any kind, i Have a 17-35 that i shoot and sometimes i feel that 17mm isnt wide enough

i think i need to break down and by the Nikon 12-24

go with tha Tamron 17-50 IMO or a used 17-85 IS

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: Anubis
im gonna agree with everyone and say that 28m is totally not wide enough on a Camera with a crop factor of any kind, i Have a 17-35 that i shoot and sometimes i feel that 17mm isnt wide enough

i think i need to break down and by the Nikon 12-24

go with tha Tamron 17-50 IMO or a used 17-85 IS

How about a 16-50?

http://www.photozone.de/8Revie...650_28_nikon/index.htm

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: Anubis
im gonna agree with everyone and say that 28m is totally not wide enough on a Camera with a crop factor of any kind, i Have a 17-35 that i shoot and sometimes i feel that 17mm isnt wide enough

i think i need to break down and by the Nikon 12-24

go with tha Tamron 17-50 IMO or a used 17-85 IS

How about a 16-50?

http://www.photozone.de/8Revie...650_28_nikon/index.htm

he 16 really isnt that much wider then 17 , + i dont need another lens that covers nearly the same range as 2 i currently have

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Anubis
im gonna agree with everyone and say that 28m is totally not wide enough on a Camera with a crop factor of any kind, i Have a 17-35 that i shoot and sometimes i feel that 17mm isnt wide enough

i think i need to break down and by the Nikon 12-24

FYI, I have the 12-24. I wish it was faster, but very happy with it overall. Nicely complements the common longer lenses.

go with tha Tamron 17-50 IMO or a used 17-85 IS

I agree. Go for the 18-85 if there's any way you can swing it. Otherwise, I think you'll be happier with the 17-50 than the other lenses you listed.