Originally posted by: virtualgames0
How's the colors and contrast of the lens?
I had a Sigma 28-70 F/2.8, and I found the colors and contrast to be horrible. The sharpness was more than adequate, but colors and contrast is far more important to me.
I stick with my primes.
Originally posted by: DeviousTrap
Why did you decide on the 28-75 instead of the 17-50?
Originally posted by: DeafeningSilence
Originally posted by: DeviousTrap
Why did you decide on the 28-75 instead of the 17-50?
Indeed. If you're wanting a "single-lens solution" for a 1.6x crop camera, then you should go with the newer 17-50 f/2.8 version. Early reviews indicate that its optical quality matches the 28-75 lens.
For a 1.6x crop body, the 28-75 needs to be supplemented by a wide-angle lens, such as the Canon 10-22 or the Tokina 12-24. An ultra-wide zoom and the 28-75 make an excellent two-lens setup.
Originally posted by: DeviousTrap
Originally posted by: DeafeningSilence
Originally posted by: DeviousTrap
Why did you decide on the 28-75 instead of the 17-50?
Indeed. If you're wanting a "single-lens solution" for a 1.6x crop camera, then you should go with the newer 17-50 f/2.8 version. Early reviews indicate that its optical quality matches the 28-75 lens.
For a 1.6x crop body, the 28-75 needs to be supplemented by a wide-angle lens, such as the Canon 10-22 or the Tokina 12-24. An ultra-wide zoom and the 28-75 make an excellent two-lens setup.
I originally bought my 17-50 hoping it would be a one-lens solution, but I'm having an urge to supplement it with the Canon 10-22. I tried the 28-75 prior to purchasing the 17-50 and found it just not being wide enough for a walkaround lens on a 1.6 crop body. I then bought the 17-50 and thought I'd be content. I was initually, that is until I rented the Canon 10-22. It's ultra-wde range seems to be very addicting. I doubt I will use it as a walkaround lens, but for landscape picture it seems like a great supplement to any collection.
I can't imagine switching to a full-frame body any time in the foreseeable future so the fact that the 17-50 is an APS-C lens doesn't worry me.
The 70-300 SP has a good reputation. I've also had good luck with my little 24mm F2.5, but I live in a manual focus world so I'm not sure if we're talking about the same lens.Originally posted by: destrekor
i own two Tamron lenses for my Nikon n65. a 28-80, and a 70-300 with macro. my photography teacher noted on how sharp my photos were.
Originally posted by: DeafeningSilence
Originally posted by: DeviousTrap
Originally posted by: DeafeningSilence
Originally posted by: DeviousTrap
Why did you decide on the 28-75 instead of the 17-50?
Indeed. If you're wanting a "single-lens solution" for a 1.6x crop camera, then you should go with the newer 17-50 f/2.8 version. Early reviews indicate that its optical quality matches the 28-75 lens.
For a 1.6x crop body, the 28-75 needs to be supplemented by a wide-angle lens, such as the Canon 10-22 or the Tokina 12-24. An ultra-wide zoom and the 28-75 make an excellent two-lens setup.
I originally bought my 17-50 hoping it would be a one-lens solution, but I'm having an urge to supplement it with the Canon 10-22. I tried the 28-75 prior to purchasing the 17-50 and found it just not being wide enough for a walkaround lens on a 1.6 crop body. I then bought the 17-50 and thought I'd be content. I was initually, that is until I rented the Canon 10-22. It's ultra-wde range seems to be very addicting. I doubt I will use it as a walkaround lens, but for landscape picture it seems like a great supplement to any collection.
I can't imagine switching to a full-frame body any time in the foreseeable future so the fact that the 17-50 is an APS-C lens doesn't worry me.
Good points. As you discovered, the Canon 10-22 is a remarkable lens, and it's part of my kit almost everywhere I go. For me, the incredible flexibility and quality of a two- or three-lens kit almost always outweighs the inconvenience of carrying more than one lens. But for the times in the future when I will need to restrict myself to one lens, I'm debating between getting the Tamron 17-50 or dropping big bucks on the Canon 17-55 with IS. :evil:
Originally posted by: DeviousTrap
Originally posted by: DeafeningSilence
Originally posted by: DeviousTrap
Why did you decide on the 28-75 instead of the 17-50?
Indeed. If you're wanting a "single-lens solution" for a 1.6x crop camera, then you should go with the newer 17-50 f/2.8 version. Early reviews indicate that its optical quality matches the 28-75 lens.
For a 1.6x crop body, the 28-75 needs to be supplemented by a wide-angle lens, such as the Canon 10-22 or the Tokina 12-24. An ultra-wide zoom and the 28-75 make an excellent two-lens setup.
I originally bought my 17-50 hoping it would be a one-lens solution, but I'm having an urge to supplement it with the Canon 10-22. I tried the 28-75 prior to purchasing the 17-50 and found it just not being wide enough for a walkaround lens on a 1.6 crop body. I then bought the 17-50 and thought I'd be content. I was initually, that is until I rented the Canon 10-22. It's ultra-wde range seems to be very addicting. I doubt I will use it as a walkaround lens, but for landscape picture it seems like a great supplement to any collection.
I can't imagine switching to a full-frame body any time in the foreseeable future so the fact that the 17-50 is an APS-C lens doesn't worry me.
Originally posted by: Triumph
Originally posted by: DeviousTrap
Originally posted by: DeafeningSilence
Originally posted by: DeviousTrap
Why did you decide on the 28-75 instead of the 17-50?
Indeed. If you're wanting a "single-lens solution" for a 1.6x crop camera, then you should go with the newer 17-50 f/2.8 version. Early reviews indicate that its optical quality matches the 28-75 lens.
For a 1.6x crop body, the 28-75 needs to be supplemented by a wide-angle lens, such as the Canon 10-22 or the Tokina 12-24. An ultra-wide zoom and the 28-75 make an excellent two-lens setup.
I originally bought my 17-50 hoping it would be a one-lens solution, but I'm having an urge to supplement it with the Canon 10-22. I tried the 28-75 prior to purchasing the 17-50 and found it just not being wide enough for a walkaround lens on a 1.6 crop body. I then bought the 17-50 and thought I'd be content. I was initually, that is until I rented the Canon 10-22. It's ultra-wde range seems to be very addicting. I doubt I will use it as a walkaround lens, but for landscape picture it seems like a great supplement to any collection.
I can't imagine switching to a full-frame body any time in the foreseeable future so the fact that the 17-50 is an APS-C lens doesn't worry me.
Really? I can't imagine needing to go much wider (which as we all know is different than wanting). Seems like 17 is plenty, I'm always looking to go much closer.
Pic
Originally posted by: Triumph
Originally posted by: DeviousTrap
Originally posted by: DeafeningSilence
Originally posted by: DeviousTrap
Why did you decide on the 28-75 instead of the 17-50?
Indeed. If you're wanting a "single-lens solution" for a 1.6x crop camera, then you should go with the newer 17-50 f/2.8 version. Early reviews indicate that its optical quality matches the 28-75 lens.
For a 1.6x crop body, the 28-75 needs to be supplemented by a wide-angle lens, such as the Canon 10-22 or the Tokina 12-24. An ultra-wide zoom and the 28-75 make an excellent two-lens setup.
I originally bought my 17-50 hoping it would be a one-lens solution, but I'm having an urge to supplement it with the Canon 10-22. I tried the 28-75 prior to purchasing the 17-50 and found it just not being wide enough for a walkaround lens on a 1.6 crop body. I then bought the 17-50 and thought I'd be content. I was initually, that is until I rented the Canon 10-22. It's ultra-wde range seems to be very addicting. I doubt I will use it as a walkaround lens, but for landscape picture it seems like a great supplement to any collection.
I can't imagine switching to a full-frame body any time in the foreseeable future so the fact that the 17-50 is an APS-C lens doesn't worry me.
Really? I can't imagine needing to go much wider (which as we all know is different than wanting). Seems like 17 is plenty, I'm always looking to go much closer.
Pic
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I have asked many pros, and they ALL agree that the APS-C/EFS is only a stop-gap measure until the cost of production of 35mm CMOS sensors drops. I mean, as of right now, you can buy an EOS-5D for under $2700. I think I paid like $2000 for my EOS-20D in November 2004. If the successor to the 5D adds a built-in flash and retails for around $2500, I am going for it.
With that in mind, I can personally not justify spending over $1000 for the EFS 17-55 F2.8IS. But I will admit, it gets rave reviews. According to Photozone.de, it's one Canon sharpest lenses ever produced, even more so than the EF 50 F1.4 when stopped up F2.8! Very impressive. I even think some FF users are jealous of this lens, hence why Canon is rumoured to releae an F2.8 IS zoom lens in the EF format.