Canon EF and EF-S vs. new Tamron 17-50mm
Zed Picolo
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
I am looking for an all-around lens for my Canon 350D. I'm not planning to
carry an extra lens on my travel adventures. I like taking low-light
photos - landscapes just after sunset, indoors without flash, as well as
macro photo of plants and insects. I really like the idea of zoom to
capture animals in the distance, but I don't tend to use the zoom much.
Instead I usually walk closer to the subject (perhaps I should get more into
the habit of using zoom, although I learned to take photos in the old days
with a fixed-35mm film model).
This is what I like about these lenses:
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - Excellent max zoom for an all-around lens.
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS - Perfect range for what I'm looking for.
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS - Superior optical quality and low light
performance.
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 - Great initial reviews on optical quality.
And here are my concerns:
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - Might not be wide enough for group
portraits and some of the more panoramic landscape scenes, older
stabilization technology.
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS - Average reviews for quality.
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS - Expensive, is it worth 3x as much?
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 - No stabilizer. Does it work well with the Canon
350D?
Zed Picolo
perfect lens for the type of photos I have in mind, but is it worth the
price?
Zed Picolo
nikojorj_ja...@yahoo.fr
If you ask the question, then the 17-85 or 17-50 will probably be a
better choice ;o))).
I agree also about the 28-135 being not wide enough (28mm makes 45mm
eq.).
I can't help you to choose between the 17-50 and 17-85IS... Is one stop
more worth the absence of IS - especially considering the not-that-tele
range of the lens?
BTW you may know the lens reviews of
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html ? Hope it helps...
Gordon MacPherson
interiors hand-held without flash (iso 800/1600). I atarted with the
28-135 but found it too narrow-angle and swapped it for the 17-85.
Gordon
DHB
wrote:
>I'm having a hard time deciding between the following lenses.
>
>Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
>Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS
>Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
>Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
>
>I am looking for an all-around lens for my Canon 350D. I'm not planning to
>carry an extra lens on my travel adventures. I like taking low-light
>photos - landscapes just after sunset, indoors without flash, as well as
>macro photo of plants and insects. I really like the idea of zoom to
>capture animals in the distance, but I don't tend to use the zoom much.
>Instead I usually walk closer to the subject (perhaps I should get more into
>the habit of using zoom, although I learned to take photos in the old days
>with a fixed-35mm film model).
I have both the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS lenses & very much like them both. The
17-85mm sounds more versatile for *your* needs because even on your
350D with it's 1.6x crop factor, you still have a reasonably wide
angle lens for your *group shots*, effectively 27.2-136mm.
As for your low light needs, how about a 50mm f1.8 MkII (~$75
USD)? You said you were willing to walk more & zoom less, at this
price this is almost a must have lens.
>
>This is what I like about these lenses:
>
Remember to keep the 1.6x crop factor in mind when considering
effective or equivalent FOV on all of these lenses:
>Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - Excellent max zoom for an all-around lens.
(44.8-216mm) Great overall reach & you can use panorama software to
stitch 2 or 3 shots together to gain a wider effective FOV, if your
subject(s) are reasonably stationary.
>Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS - Perfect range for what I'm looking for.
(27-.2-136mm) If this meets your overall needs better, than why not go
with it?
>Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS - Superior optical quality and low light
>performance.
(27.2-88mm) True but it's also very expensive, but that's *your* call.
>Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 - Great initial reviews on optical quality.
(27.2-80mm) I don't know much about this lens but *if* you are OK with
the optical quality of the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 than would it not
be a better choice than either of the above 2 lens?
>And here are my concerns:
>
>Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - Might not be wide enough for group
>portraits and some of the more panoramic landscape scenes, older
>stabilization technology.
>Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS - Average reviews for quality.
>Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS - Expensive, is it worth 3x as much?
>Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 - No stabilizer. Does it work well with the Canon
>350D?
>
When I get lazy & just want to carry as few lenses as
possible, I generally find myself with the following lenses depending
on how many I want to carry.
If just 1 lens: *EF 28-135mm IS f3.5-5.6*
If 2 lenses: *EF-S 17-85mm IS f4-5.6 & 70-300mm IS f4-5.6*
If 3 lenses: *EF 50mm MkII f1.8, EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS &
70-300mm IS f4-5.6*
If 4 lenses: *EF 50mm MkII f1.8. EF 100mm f2, EF-S 17-85mm IS
f4-5.6 & 70-300mm IS f4.5.6*
These are my choices based on my DSLR's, my ability & what I
can afford in optics. Those with greater ability & deeper pockets
might want/need better optics but for me, these are good choices.
My DSLRs are a Canon 300D & a 30D.
You also may wish to check out some of the pictures on
www.pbase.com & do a search for pictures taken with the lense(s) that
you are considering.
Best of luck & just keep in mind that what is best in lenses
is a lot like asking what is best in a vehicle, a lot depends on
*your* individual needs/wants & what you can afford.
Best of luck
Respectfully, DHB
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Steve Wolfe
> perfect lens for the type of photos I have in mind, but is it worth the
> price?
If you're the sort of person who can't sleep at night because his $1500
lens has a plastic barrel instead of metal, and doesn't have a red ring
around the end, then no, it is not. On the other hand, if all you care
about is a lens that will provide you with high-quality images, then yes, it
is probably worth the price.
If I had the money to spend, I'd probably buy one myself. As far as a
"general purpose" zoom lens, it's the closest to ideal (for me) that I can
find. I like the range of the 17-85 better, but the 17-55 provides sharper
images, and has a faster aperture. My 70-200 f/2.8L has ruined me. Now
going from a constant-aperture zoom to zooms like the 17-85 that are not
only slower, but also change aperture as you zoom, can be painful. And not
getting sharp images wide-open becomes a great inconvenience. But then
again, after using primes of f/1.8 and below, even f/2.8 can seem a little
slow.
steve