my first DSLR -- kit lens or no kit lens?

[mugs]

Originally posted by: TheChort
hey, why didn't anyone say that the Tamron doesn't have image stabilization?

I think this might rule it out as my main lens, since I'm a pretty big fan of scenery/landscape shooting
🙁

1. Most lenses don't have image stabilization.
2. You shouldn't need image stabilization for landscape shooting.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: TheChort
hey, why didn't anyone say that the Tamron doesn't have image stabilization?

I think this might rule it out as my main lens, since I'm a pretty big fan of scenery/landscape shooting
🙁

1. Most lenses don't have image stabilization.
2. You shouldn't need image stabilization for landscape shooting.

At that speed and that relatively short focal length it's just added cost/weight.

 

[pyonir]

everyone has their own opinions on the matter but i've tried Sigma, Tamron and Canon lenses and Tamron definitely comes in third out of those three. I've used the Tamron 28-75 2.8 and found it inferior to the Canon 24-70 and the Sigma 24-70. Personally, i won't purchase a Tamron lens.

 

[ghostman]

Well, I love my Tamron 28-75. I'm sure the Sigma 24-70 is a good lens too, but most of the user reviews I've read (and trust me, I've read MANY) seemed to favor the Tamron. Of course, I'd take any single-lens to single-lens comparison with a grain of salt, since a bad copy on either side would make the comparison pointless.

I was debating over the Tamron 28-75 and the 17-50. I know the 17-50 is a more practical walk-around lens on my XTi, but I figured that I'd probably want a super-wide (perhaps a Canon 10-22 or Tokina 12-24) and a telephoto (70-200) one day and the 28-75 range fit right in the middle without much gaps. Also, the 28-75 is cheaper and will work on a full frame camera (not much of a concern though). I bought the XTi without a kit lens, then bought the 50 F/1.8 ($75), then the Tamron 28-75 ($330), then the kit lens USED. Yes, I fully intended to get the kit lens once I felt I needed the wide range (it's a decent lens at small apertures [large aperture values]), but knew that I could get a used one for pretty cheap since people were replacing it with better lenses.

The fact that these Tamron lenses have no IS isn't that big of a deal to me, especially for landscape shots. I'd be more concerned to get IS on a telephoto, since my shaky hands will have a more dramatic effect.