Lens options

DJ-S1

Yep, another "what should I buy" thread, sorry!

I have a dRebel with just the kit lens, and I want to add a lens or 2. I have been looking at the Canon EF 28-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM and the Tamron AF 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di. I have no clue how to choose. Here's what I think I know so far:

Canon - more reach (135mm vs. 75mm), IS, USM (faster focusing?)
Tamron - faster (2.8 vs. 5.6), cheaper ($310 vs. $400), lighter

As for what I shoot, I am a dad so I am the family photographer. Lots of indoor stuff, and I hate using a flash for it. But I am also trying to learn to improve my non-family photography. When left to my own devices, I find I lean more towards zoom and away from wide. The only other factor here is that in the summer, I love airshows and the challenge of getting good shots there.

I'm not the type to constantly trade-in/upgrade equipment, and I think my next lens will be something more in the 300mm range.

Any thoughts on which way to go? Or am I missing another option?

Khaos

If your majority of shooting will be indoor photgraphy were generally the lite will low, I recommend the Tamron. I've owned both, still have the Tamron. There's nothing wrong with the Canon, it's a good lens, but you'll rarely need to use the 135 indoors. The faster the lens the better. While the Tamron build is definately not a sgood as Canon's, the picture quality of this lens is superb.

pathfinder

Khaos wrote:

If your majority of shooting will be indoor photgraphy were generally the lite will low, I recommend the Tamron. I've owned both, still have the Tamron. There's nothing wrong with the Canon, it's a good lens, but you'll rarely need to use the 135 indoors. The faster the lens the better. While the Tamron build is definately not a sgood as Canon's, the picture quality of this lens is superb.

I agree - The Tamron 28-75F2.8 Di has an excelent reputation as being an excellent lens. It was responsible for the vast majority of my images excluding birds and bugs. The 28-135 Canon is a nice walk around lens, but won't be as useful indoors as the shorter 28-75 Tamron. The 28-135 IS wil be way too short for Airshows unless you limit yourself to planes parked on the tarmac. In flight shots will need at least 300mm to be satisfactory.

DJ-S1

Thanks guys, makes sense and that helps a lot.

Is the depth of field a problem with a constant aperture 2.8 lens? Sometimes I have trouble controlling DOF, and it's even shallower with a big aperture right?

Khaos

DJ-S1 wrote:

Thanks guys, makes sense and that helps a lot.

Is the depth of field a problem with a constant aperture 2.8 lens? Sometimes I have trouble controlling DOF, and it's even shallower with a big aperture right?

DOF of field is not a problem of the lens, but one of the photographer. You control how much background blur you'll get by choosing the aperture size in relation to how close the focal point is to the shot. The lens is not at a constant 2.8. Those numbers are telling you the maximum aperture available. So a f/4 lens will have a maximum aperture of 4.0. On a 20D it can go to a minumum of f/32

DJ-S1

...and the light bulb goes on. Of course! I knew that, but it shows I don't have the full grasp of the concept yet. Sorry for the stupid question and thanks for the help.

rockyp

Khaos wrote:

While the Tamron build is definately not a sgood as Canon's, the picture quality of this lens is superb.

My experience is admittedly limited, but I shot with a Tamron 28-200 for quite some time on a Canon D60 and 20D. I was never satisfied with the results - poor focusing and/or too soft. Canon's 28-135 was sharper, and I recently bought a Canon 28-135IS and 75-300IS, and the results are strikingly better. Could be that I just had a bad Tamron...

Rocky

pathfinder

rockyp wrote:

My experience is admittedly limited, but I shot with a Tamron 28-200 for quite some time on a Canon D60 and 20D. I was never satisfied with the results - poor focusing and/or too soft. Canon's 28-135 was sharper, and I recently bought a Canon 28-135IS and 75-300IS, and the results are strikingly better. Could be that I just had a bad Tamron...

Rocky

28-200mm zooms, I call travel zooms - all-in-one lenses - and they tend to not be nearly as good as smaller range zooms. 7-10 to 1 zooms are not ever going to be as good as a 3-1 zoom. The Tamron 28-75f2.8 Di is a very useful lens and will be sharp and crisp if used properly.

This was shot with a Tamron 28-75 Di and a 10D

DJ-S1

I think I'm leaning towards the Tamron because of my low light needs, and then when I can swing it I'll add the Canon 75-300 IS. Maybe a 1.4 TC, a good bag and a good tripod will round out my kit eventually.

Sound like a reasonable setup?

timsims

Yes, I'd recommend starting with the Tamron. The Canon 28-135 IS was the first lens I ever owned and it was a major disappointment. Maybe I had a bad copy, but I struggled with it for three months before buying a Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX. For the longer zooms consider the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX as well.

Khaos

timsims wrote:

Yes, I'd recommend starting with the Tamron. The Canon 28-135 IS was the first lens I ever owned and it was a major disappointment. Maybe I had a bad copy, but I struggled with it for three months before buying a Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX. For the longer zooms consider the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX as well.

It will cost you, but I have to recommend saving and waiting and buying the Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS over the Sigma zoom. Right now its the only L series I own. Since the cost is so high, I decided to buy one L series and as the years go buy slowly upgrade. I chose the 70-200 because of the versitality of being able to use it as a portrati lens, an outdoor lens, an indoor low light, like shooting bands in bars lens, an indoor sports lens, etc. The quality is superb and the IS is so nice to have.

leebase

rockyp wrote:

My experience is admittedly limited, but I shot with a Tamron 28-200 for quite some time on a Canon D60 and 20D. I was never satisfied with the results - poor focusing and/or too soft. Canon's 28-135 was sharper, and I recently bought a Canon 28-135IS and 75-300IS, and the results are strikingly better. Could be that I just had a bad Tamron...

Rocky

The Tamron 28-200 is not in the same class as the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 -- The Canon 28-135 is a nice lens if you value IS...but it's still slow, and only a mid-performer lens. The Tamron 28-75 f2.8 is very near the performance of the top of the line Canon 24-70 f2.8 L.

Lee

leebase

DJ-S1 wrote:

I think I'm leaning towards the Tamron because of my low light needs, and then when I can swing it I'll add the Canon 75-300 IS. Maybe a 1.4 TC, a good bag and a good tripod will round out my kit eventually.

Sound like a reasonable setup?

No. The 75-300 is already a slow lens. Putting the 1.4TC on it will make it one stop slower. You'll likely loose auto focus ability at the long end.

If you plan to use extenders you'll want zooms with f2.8 max aperatures.

The 75-300 is an ok, but not great lens. It does have IS which is nice, but I'd rather go for better optics and use a monopod.

Consider the Canon 70-200 f/4 which has a good reputation, or if you want wide aperatures (like I do) consider the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. The Sigma works very well with 1.4x and 2x extenders.

Lee

mercphoto

DJ-S1 wrote:

I think I'm leaning towards the Tamron because of my low light needs, and then when I can swing it I'll add the Canon 75-300 IS. Maybe a 1.4 TC, a good bag and a good tripod will round out my kit eventually.

Except that the 1.4 TC won't work with the 75-300. I had, then sold, that lens. I would recommend the 70-200 f/4 instead, along with the 1.4 TC. A bit more money but significantly better images.

DJ-S1

Thanks everyone. Seems like general agreement that the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 will suit my needs for a walk-around lens. I can figure out the longer lens later, when I have the $$. I'm sure I'll be soliciting more advice then.