Help: Next Lens Purchase

Sh4d0w

Hello All,

I'm looking to purchase my next camera lens, and I'm not quite sure which to choose.

I use a Canon EOS 20D, and just purchased a Magic Drainpipe, which I love, but now am looking to replace my kit lens, with preferably a faster lens. I've heard good things about the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8, but I am also attracted to the Canon 28-80mm 2.8-4L. I'm looking to spend around $500, but of course any money saving ideas would be great, in college every penny counts!

Any advice on which to pick would be great, I'm not sure about the 28-80mm as it may not be wide enough on the 1.6 crop, yet I'm unsure of the Tamron due to the lack of quality control/lack of quality compared to Canon L's.

Thanks!
Jay

craig_d

The question of whether 17-50mm or 28-80mm is a better fit for your needs is one you should answer for yourself by reviewing the pictures you've been taking with the kit lens. Do you often take photos in the 18-27mm range? If so, do you really want to lose that capability? (On the other hand, I'm not sure what the 20D's kit lens was... was it the original EF-S 18-55mm?)

Like the "Magic Drainpipe" EF 80-200mm f/2.8L USM, the EF 28-80mm f/2.8-4L USM is a 20-year-old lens (introduced in 1989) that has been out of production for about 15 years. It seems to be quite good optically, if not the equal of today's EF 24-70 f/2.8L USM, but it's kind of an odd bird in some ways. Despite the L and USM labels, it does not support full-time manual focus, and in fact its manual focus is electronic (focus by wire, the focus ring controls the focus motor rather than directly adjusting the lens). That, combined with the sliding maximum aperture, would rule it out for me, but I'm sure you could get good pictures out of it. One concern would be whether Canon is still willing or even able to repair it should you have problems with it in the future. But you're already taking that risk with the Drainpipe.

I understand the attraction of getting top-quality glass at bargain prices by buying old models, and the 28-80L would make a nice matched set with the Drainpipe. In this case, though, I'd be inclined to go for the Tamron, which is a very well-regarded lens.

Sh4d0w

craig_d wrote:

The question of whether 17-50mm or 28-80mm is a better fit for your needs is one you should answer for yourself by reviewing the pictures you've been taking with the kit lens. Do you often take photos in the 18-27mm range? If so, do you really want to lose that capability? (On the other hand, I'm not sure what the 20D's kit lens was... was it the original EF-S 18-55mm?)

Like the "Magic Drainpipe" EF 80-200mm f/2.8L USM, the EF 28-80mm f/2.8-4L USM is a 20-year-old lens (introduced in 1989) that has been out of production for about 15 years. It seems to be quite good optically, if not the equal of today's EF 24-70 f/2.8L USM, but it's kind of an odd bird in some ways. Despite the L and USM labels, it does not support full-time manual focus, and in fact its manual focus is electronic (focus by wire, the focus ring controls the focus motor rather than directly adjusting the lens). That, combined with the sliding maximum aperture, would rule it out for me, but I'm sure you could get good pictures out of it. One concern would be whether Canon is still willing or even able to repair it should you have problems with it in the future. But you're already taking that risk with the Drainpipe.

I understand the attraction of getting top-quality glass at bargain prices by buying old models, and the 28-80L would make a nice matched set with the Drainpipe. In this case, though, I'd be inclined to go for the Tamron, which is a very well-regarded lens.

FTM and Canon support are not major factors for me at this point and time, and considering that the sliding 2.8-4 would be considerably faster than my 18-55mm kit lens, I almost feel like the 28-80mm would be a better fit. But I've never held either of these lenses in my hand, so I'm still very torn, and being new to photography still don't quite know the route I should go. Is the image quality of the Tamron up to par with Canon L lenses?

Thank you for the insight!

tjstrider

I also own a 1.6 crop factor with my 30D

I bought the 28-70mm F/2.8L and said to all my friends that they were wrong and that 28 was wide enough for my purposes.

I quickly realized that just wasn't true. The useful range for college photojournalism is totally 17-50mm and the 80-200 for sports and distance work.

Also in terms of budget if you get the 17-50 it is a great travel lens for other countries and such. 17 feels noticeably wider than the 18mm and is super sharp comparatively.

I feel that going as old at the 28-80 would just be crazy. There is a certain appeal to owning lenses that others don't have and don't know about but the optics on the Tamron are great and constant 2.8 is much nicer than having to adjust the aperture in manual mode for exposures.

I just graduated and no longer have access to the 17-50 that I had during college and I miss it a lot! I sold my 28-70 2.8L for the 10-22 ... Don't miss the 28-70 at all

Brett1000

Sh4d0w wrote:

FTM and Canon support are not major factors for me at this point and time, and considering that the sliding 2.8-4 would be considerably faster than my 18-55mm kit lens, I almost feel like the 28-80mm would be a better fit. But I've never held either of these lenses in my hand, so I'm still very torn, and being new to photography still don't quite know the route I should go. Is the image quality of the Tamron up to par with Canon L lenses?

Thank you for the insight!

the Tamron 17-50 2.8 is on par with Canon lens for crop bodies
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398

ziggy53

I have the Canon EF 28-80mm, f2.5-f4L USM and I agree that it is too long for an indoor standard lens on crop 1.6x camera bodies. The 28-80mm, f2.5-f4L is no longer serviced by Canon, so there is also some additional risk involved.

I also have a Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8 EX DC, which I purchased for the Canon 1.6x bodies, as well as the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM. While I purchased the Sigma, it was before the Tamron 17-50mm, f2.8 had been produced and I did not think the Tamron 28-75mm, f2.8 would be wide enough for my crop 1.6x cameras.

If I had to replace the Sigma today I would purchase the Tamron 17-50mm, f2.8 for it's higher quality optics and better AF. The Sigma hunts too much in low-light and often misses focus, even at f4.

Of your choices I would highly recommend the Tamron AF 17-50mm, f2.8 XR Di-II LD SP Aspherical (IF) as the best for a general purpose standard zoom on crop 1.6x camera bodies, especially if indoor and event shooting is part of your requirements.

craig_d

ziggy53 wrote:

Of your choices I would highly recommend the Tamron AF 17-50mm, f2.8 XR Di-II LD SP Aspherical (IF) as the best for a general purpose standard zoom on crop 1.6x camera bodies, especially if indoor and event shooting is part of your requirements.

I've heard elsewhere that the newer VC (Vibration Control) version of the Tamron 17-50mm isn't as good optically as the old non-VC version. Do you have any opinion about that?

ziggy53

craig_d wrote:

I've heard elsewhere that the newer VC (Vibration Control) version of the Tamron 17-50mm isn't as good optically as the old non-VC version. Do you have any opinion about that?

The best pre-review I have seen is at:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-VC-Lens-Review.aspx

The tests at PhotoZone are similar:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/482-tamron_1750_28vc_canon

Things are not looking that good for the VC version, although in practical use and at snapshot sizes it's not bad.

The Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM is still considerably better overall and what I recommend and use for a crop 1.6x Canon body and needing IS (priced accordingly).

Brett1000

craig_d wrote:

I've heard elsewhere that the newer VC (Vibration Control) version of the Tamron 17-50mm isn't as good optically as the old non-VC version. Do you have any opinion about that?

true but you may not need IS - I turned the IS off on the 18-55IS and found it did not make a difference, even at low shutter speeds like 1/10 sec.

Sh4d0w

What about the Canon 17-35mm f/2.8 L? For just over my price range I could have this lens ($600-$700), which on the 1.6 crop would useful for the wide to "normal" range. I also have the "Nifty Fifty" so that would give me 17-35mm - 50mm - 80-200mm, with a possible 2.8 aperture throughout. Does that sound logical? I think that the 17-35mm would provide me with better quality images than the tamron, let alone would be better built, and of course make me happier to own the Canon "L" brand lens. =D

ziggy53

Sh4d0w wrote:

What about the Canon 17-35mm f/2.8 L? For just over my price range I could have this lens ($600-$700), which on the 1.6 crop would useful for the wide to "normal" range. I also have the "Nifty Fifty" so that would give me 17-35mm - 50mm - 80-200mm, with a possible 2.8 aperture throughout. Does that sound logical? I think that the 17-35mm would provide me with better quality images than the tamron, let alone would be better built, and of course make me happier to own the Canon "L" brand lens. =D

The Canon EF 17-35mm. f2.8L USM is a very nice, but pretty old, professional lens. The concern would be for repairs and range. The Tamron is going to have a much nicer range overall and image quality should not be a problem for most applications. Focus speed and accuracy will be better on the Canon lens.

I suppose that if you check with Canon and they can still repair the lens then it is still a highly recommended zoom. It is not my first recommendation however. The first recommendation would be the Tamron AF 17-50mm, f2.8 XR Di-II LD SP Aspherical (IF). If you can find a good used copy of the Tamron zoom so much the better.