I need this lens

~Jan~

Last night I did portraits for two little girls. They were friends & neighbors, and wanted several individual shots and some duo ones. I LOVE my 85mm for full-body shots, but LOVE my 50 mm the most of head shots. So, I kept switching. ANNOYING.

I NEED THIS LENS. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=reviews&A=details&Q=&sku=264304&is=USA&si=rev&rb=10

I mean, I REALLY want it. It would make my life easier. THink I can squeak $1100 by my husband? :wink Anyone have this lens that can give a review? I don't think I've ready anything bad about it.

jeffreaux2

Good luck on the sqeaking thing.

I use a Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 Macro zoom.

It communicates with and works perfectly with my Xti. I also own the 50mm and 85mm that you mentioned, but the Tamron is still my most used lens. I did a ton of research before I bought it, and am very satisfied. Sigma also makes one, but the reviews for it were not as good as the Tamron. Most of the reviews I read said that it was nearly as good as the Canon at wide open aperatures, and as good or better at smaller aperatures. I would definately buy it all over again. It has been invaluble. It is not a super fast focuser, but neither is that particular lense you mentioned that Canon builds. It is also not silent like the Canon, but the focus motor is fairly quiet, and is a non-issue as far as I am concerned.

I have seen it listed as high as $400, but I got mine with a rebate and only paid $309 Definately cheaper. As good as the Canon...I dunno I never owned it, but I would say it is definately good.

I have plenty of samples in my galleries if you take the time to check the exif.....if it isn't 50 or 85 mm it was taken with the Tamron.

Pbase will also have samples. They are here http://www.pbase.com/cameras/tamron/sp_af_28-75_28_xr_di_ld_if

Here are two of mine.

Scott_Quier

I can only second what Jeff has said about the Tammy 28-75. I've had mine for about 3 years - it's a great lens. Optically very sharp. The AF is quick, not super-quick but quick enough. I used it to shoot my first two weddings last year. The only issue I had with it was at the receptions. When mounted on a 20D (mention that as it might be significant) and shooting in a cave, it sometimes misses focus - fails to lock.

Anyway, here are a couple:

This was at f/4.5 and 75mm


This one shot at f/3.5 and 28mm


I have a number of lens and pretty much have this range covered a couple of times over. I don't think I will ever sell this lens - it's just too versatile!

Seneca

Yes it's definately a nice lens. I have something very similar 28-70 Nikon lens. I love mine!

I say go for it!!

chopsky

The 24-70 is a phenomenal piece of glass. Tac sharpness to say the least. It might be similiar focal length and the same aperture as the Tamron, but they're worlds apart in quality.

I find it interesting how you prefer the 50 for headshots and the 85 for full-body. Quite an inverse relationship there.

Well, good luck!

Swartzy

Jan....
Interesting discussion as I too am looking at the very same lens/focal length. I can pick up the Tamron 28-75 for a super price from a friend here but am doing some math.....hold on, getting calculator. Since you have the 50 & 85, another possibility is considering the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. That lens is by far sharper than the 28-75. My reasoning is this: A full frame body (5D) using the Canon "L" 24-70 is like the perfect portrait/wedding set up IMHO. Since the Xti is a 1.6 crop camera, the Tamron 17-50 would effectively be 27.20 mm-80mm. This covers lots of ground and a few steps back or forth gives you excellent range.

From what I've seen with this lens, it is tac sharp throughout the focal length, even at f/2.8. The Tamron 28-75 is a nice lens but not "as" sharp. When you shoot "L" glass, its truly difficult to accept anything less. I'm looking for an interim lens while saving pennies for the best...so in essence, one of these 2 Tamron lenses will go in the bag shortly.

Here's a review on the 28-75:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-28-75mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-Lens-Review.aspx

Also, if you scroll down you'll see a review for the 17-50 as well. Hope this confuses you further!

jeffreaux2

In all fairness after reading a few of the responses, there is one othe piece of glass that hasn't been mentioned. The Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS. I have seen some examples of what this lense can do in this forum by Urbanaries. If you have never used a stabalized lense, it is a real treat. Expect to pay $900-100 for it, but if everything I have read about it is true, it is THE lens to have in this focal range. Maybe Lynn will read this and offer up some samples and an opinion. Seeing her amazing compositions with this lense have me seriously considering adding it to my bag instead of a 70-200mm zoom(which was going to be my next purchase). Just imagine being able to handhold your kit lense at 1/30 shutter speed, in poor light, and grab a shrap image.

I also thought it odd that you prefer the 85mm for full body and the 50mm for head shots. For me the 85 is a dream on 3/4 length and head shots. Get in close with that 85mm and open that aperature up to 4 or 4.5.

~Jan~

chopsky wrote:

The 24-70 is a phenomenal piece of glass. Tac sharpness to say the least. It might be similiar focal length and the same aperture as the Tamron, but they're worlds apart in quality.

I find it interesting how you prefer the 50 for headshots and the 85 for full-body. Quite an inverse relationship there.

Well, good luck!

I just CAN'T use my 50 for full-body because it isn't sharp. The 85 is sharp. Last time I tried my 85 for close-ups it wasn't as good as my 50.

urbanaries

Jan, do you feel like the 18-55 isn't sharp, or are you wanting to shoot wider apertures for DOF and/or low light?

If you aren't happy with the sharpness of the 50mm, you won't be happy with the sharpness of the Tamron 17-50, I can almost guarantee it. I've owned this lens, as well as the Sigma 24-70, and neither is CLOSE to being as consisently and accurately sharp as the 17-55 2.8 IS, or even the 17-85 3.5-5.6 IS, which incidentally, just may be the lens for you right now. You can pick these up used/refurbished for about $400. It's an AWESOME focal range on the Rebel, a very versatile lens if given enough light. Much better build quality than the 18-55 or the Tamron versions, IMO.

I'm not sure what photos Jeff is blathering about up in that last post....but here's my personal fave showcasing what the Canon 17-55 2.8 can do handheld. 22mm (on 1.6 body) 1/20, f2.8, ISO800.


and indoors, here's 1/15th at 55mm.

jeffreaux2

I just LOVE to say this.........

I told ya so!!!!

Swartzy

~Jan~ wrote:

I just CAN'T use my 50 for full-body because it isn't sharp. The 85 is sharp. Last time I tried my 85 for close-ups it wasn't as good as my 50.

Now I'm completely confused (doesn't take much ya know). Your 50 mm isn't sharp????? then the 85 wasn't as sharp as the 50??? Hmmmm...very interesting. My 50 fantastic plastic is awesome at what ever aperature:

urbanaries

Swartzy wrote:

Now I'm completely confused (doesn't take much ya know). Your 50 mm isn't sharp????? then the 85 wasn't as sharp as the 50??? Hmmmm...very interesting. My 50 fantastic plastic is awesome at what ever aperature:

She may be referring to the long minimum focusing distance of the 85mm. You can get much closer to the subject with the 50mm? I don't know.

I do agree the 50mm is plenty sharp, the AF misses focus entirely more than other lenses, because it has a crappy/slow focus motor compared to a smooth, fast USM lens. Personally when I use it nowadays I manually focus and have plenty of sharpness even at 2.0.

dogwood

One more idea-- the 24-105L Canon lens. I know it's f/4, but if you're shooting portraits (well, for me anyway), I'm often at f5.6 as my widest aperture.

Anyway, all that said, I have a 24-70 and not a 24-105. And you know what my fav portrait lens is? My 70-200.

~Jan~

urbanaries wrote:

She may be referring to the long minimum focusing distance of the 85mm. You can get much closer to the subject with the 50mm? I don't know.

I do agree the 50mm is plenty sharp, the AF misses focus entirely more than other lenses, because it has a crappy/slow focus motor compared to a smooth, fast USM lens. Personally when I use it nowadays I manually focus and have plenty of sharpness even at 2.0.

EXACTLY. The AF misses the focal point. So, I shouldn't say it's not SHARP, it's not sharp in the spot I want it to be. The 85mm is much more reliable about being sharp from a distance. But, I prefer to get nice & close for head shots and the 50 can nail focus on those. Hope that makes sense. I know it sounds more practical to use a shorter focal length for distance shots but I'm backwards like that.

Also, in that pic you shared, Swarty, really looks to me like the focus fell on her shirt and not her eye. That's the exact problem I have w/ the 50 sometimes.

urbanaries

~Jan~ wrote:

EXACTLY. The AF misses the focal point. So, I shouldn't say it's not SHARP, it's not sharp in the spot I want it to be. The 85mm is much more reliable about being sharp from a distance. But, I prefer to get nice & close for head shots and the 50 can nail focus on those. Hope that makes sense. I know it sounds more practical to use a shorter focal length for distance shots but I'm backwards like that.

Also, in that pic you shared, Swarty, really looks to me like the focus fell on her shirt and not her eye. That's the exact problem I have w/ the 50 sometimes.

Have you considered the 50 1.4, Jan? I haven't bought it personally (not a whole lot of need for it with the 17-55 IS) but it's cheaper than the 85mm and it's got USM.

~Jan~

urbanaries wrote:

Have you considered the 50 1.4, Jan? I haven't bought it personally (not a whole lot of need for it with the 17-55 IS) but it's cheaper than the 85mm and it's got USM.

I have considered it. Not sure, though...I think maybe I should just buy one good L lens and stop dinking around with these other ones.

urbanaries

~Jan~ wrote:

I have considered it. Not sure, though...I think maybe I should just buy one good L lens and stop dinking around with these other ones.

haha sounds like you have a case of the red ring fever...nothing else will do!

photogmomma

Let's see... my thoughts.

I LOVE my 24-105L. It's a gorgeous lens, but I do wish it was faster than f/4.0 - a bit too often for my tastes. But then again, if i had gone with the 28-70 f/2.8, I'd be missing the length. But my lens takes gorgeous portraits!

I upgraded to the 50mm f/1.4 and it's amazing. Truly. I love that lens. I had the 1.8 and was SO frustrated with the focus - I would literally throw away half the shots most of the time because if it! But the 1.4 is bad because now most of my shots (when *I* don't move) are tack sharp exactly where they should be. Bad because now I have to work harder to cull out the good shots!!

I also love my 85mm f/1.8. Honestly, while I liked it on my 10D, like it a LOT on my 30D (backup), it's gorgeous on my 5D. (You can see my post from earlier today for examples - those are all the 85mm.) Dont' know why it acts so much better on my 5D, but it does - so don't toss it out the window if you plan on that camera! (I think I saw you mention it!)

My other favorite lens is the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. I love how fast it is. It is HEAVY, but the shots from it are wonderful, too. It's fast (not screaming, but still really fast) and I really like it a lot!

But if I were you, I'd look hard at the 17-55mm unless you're thinking you'll upgrade your camera soon. I look at Lynne's photos from it and I'm just floored at the quality. It looks awesome!

Wow. I'm not help at all!

But if someone said I could only keep two lenses, one of them would be my 50mm f/1.4 or my 85mm f/1.8. And the other... I'm not so sure. That would be the harder pick! Or maybe I'd just go with my two primes....

Good luck! I'm sure you'll find the perfect fit!

Scott_Quier

I have (among others):

• EF 50 f/1.4 - focuses fast and accurate. Is very sharp.
• EF 85 f/1.8 - Same thing, only much sharper
• EF-S 17/55 f/2.8 IS - this is an amazing lens and would be the last lens I gave up if I had to sell to buy food.

The 50 and the 17-55 overlap. But, there's one big difference. The 50 has that wonderful f/1.4. There have been a couple of times when I've needed either the speed or the very shallow DOF. In those cases, nothing else would do. And, it's sharp too:D

I'm with photogmomma:

But if I were you, I'd look hard at the 17-55mm unless you're thinking you'll upgrade your camera soon. I look at Lynne's photos from it and I'm just floored at the quality. It looks awesome!

This is an awesome lens and is my workhorse. I use this for about 50% of each wedding and 90% of each reception.

But, for portrait work, nothing works better than the 50 and the 85!

Did I help or did I just muddy the waters that much more?

~Jan~

Scott_Quier wrote:

Did I help or did I just muddy the waters that much more?

Um, the 2nd one. I should just rent a 24-70 L and 50 1.4 and try them both out for a shoot, but when I look at the cost of that (I think around $200 for both) I think I'd be better of to buy them and just sell them if I don't like them! Canon lens have great resale value, right?

dogwood

~Jan~ wrote:

Canon lens have great resale value, right?

Yes. You'll have no trouble reselling either of those lenses.

evoryware

~Jan~ wrote:

I mean, I REALLY want it. It would make my life easier. THink I can squeak $1100 by my husband?

Interesting. I always wonder if I can squeak another lens past my wife! Goes both ways I guess!

urbanaries

evoryware wrote:

Interesting. I always wonder if I can squeak another lens past my wife! Goes both ways I guess!

HA, being single ROCKS!!! Less coming in, but only one person deciding where it goes.