A&P looking for a walk-around lens

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Paul Revere, Jul 31, 2006.

  1. Paul Revere

    Paul Revere OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 19, 2003
    Messages:
    38,938
    Likes Received:
    177
    Location:
    Cali-NO NFA-fornia
    ive been looking around for a decent walk-around lens after getting my 50mm. ive been looking at the review sections on Fred Miranda and PhotoZone but cant come up with something solid.

    what does OT recomend? i would like to spend less than 500 if i could....

    i dont really have anything specific in mind, im just looking for someone to point me in the right direction or give me some insight to their experience

    thanks guys.
     
  2. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tamron 28-75 F/2.8 XR Di


    or spend some more and get the Canon 17-55 f/1.8 IS and cover walkaround and wide angle
     
  3. Paul Revere

    Paul Revere OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 19, 2003
    Messages:
    38,938
    Likes Received:
    177
    Location:
    Cali-NO NFA-fornia
    what i read about the 17-55 f/1.8 IS makes it seem great, but the ~$1100 price tag is a turn off :hsd:

    does most of OT feel the tamrom 28-75 f/2.8 xr di is a good lens? this isnt the frist time ive heard it mentioned here
     
  4. Phlea

    Phlea OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    East Coast
    I have the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. I would not want to part with it...I shoot with a d70.
     
  5. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is ~ 400-450 if you want something wider than 28mm and don't require the additional reach. I used the 28-75 for a few months and it was nice, but it wasn't wide enough for what I shoot.
     
  6. frozenhubcap

    frozenhubcap New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,275
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Norman, OK
    Get a Canon 28-135 IS ?
     
  7. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0

    oh hell no
     
  8. tenplanescrashing

    tenplanescrashing Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    you obviously don't read very many threads then...

    That seems to be the best lens for the money but Nikon's 18-200 VR is also one of the best lenses for the money too.
     
  9. NSX

    NSX OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2004
    Messages:
    8,955
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    none yo'
    Agreed. Tamron 28-75mm is not wide enough for a 1.5/1.6 crop sensor. You didn't mention what your camera brand is nor what you shoot.

    For nikon: 18-70mm
    For canon: 17-85IS mm
    For third party lens: Sigma 17-70 (I have this lens. It's a lot for your buck. It goes wide and tele PLUS it has a macro function too 1:2 ratio); Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or you can wait for the Tokina 16-50 f/2.8. Sigma also has a 18-50 f/2.8 that's getting good reviews for sharpness.
     
  10. silverceli2k

    silverceli2k I

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,793
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tallahassee, FL.
    Just a wee bit over his price range. And i can vouche for the Tamron 28-75 as well. I would like something a bit wider though, but it does take nice shots!
     
  11. silverceli2k

    silverceli2k I

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,793
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tallahassee, FL.
    I wasn't denying that fact. I agree. But it is still nonetheless out of his price range.
     
  12. joy division

    joy division New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    16,419
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    hollywood, LAids
    I just use 17-40L, pretty cheap used... 500 or so.
     
  13. Paul Revere

    Paul Revere OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 19, 2003
    Messages:
    38,938
    Likes Received:
    177
    Location:
    Cali-NO NFA-fornia
    sorry, i have a canon
     
  14. Paul Revere

    Paul Revere OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 19, 2003
    Messages:
    38,938
    Likes Received:
    177
    Location:
    Cali-NO NFA-fornia
    what are you talking about? i said its not the first time i've heard it on OT, and that it seems a lot of people like it. i was simply asking for confirmation.

    and, viperx27 why do you say "oh hell no" to the 28-135 IS?
     
  15. Changed

    Changed Guest

    only lens I have is the Tamron... Its a good walk around lens. As said prevously, could be wider... but its not that big a deal.
     
  16. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    the 28-135 is over priced, over sized, not sharp and basically all around shitty. Adding IS to a piece of crap is just polishing a turd

    my dad owns one, I owned one, my profs owned one. never got one keeper from it
     
  17. dtfromep

    dtfromep New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,674
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Saint Paul, MN
    If your pockets aren't too deep - I am finding my 20-35 3.5-5.6 USM attached to the camera more often than not. Can be had for ~$250.
     
  18. 24-70

    16-35 isn't bad either but you have no zoom.
     
  19. MonkMonk

    MonkMonk New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,044
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just use a 28mm :mamoru:
     

  20. i'm sorry
     
  21. Paul Revere

    Paul Revere OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 19, 2003
    Messages:
    38,938
    Likes Received:
    177
    Location:
    Cali-NO NFA-fornia
    the 28-75mm is a really nice looking lens, but i'd like something a little wider.

    i've been looking more closely at the following:

    Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC

    and

    Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS

    the sigma can be found at about $340 on ebay while the canon is closer to $500. does anyone on OT have experience with these?

    from what i can gather the canon is obviouslly wider, and has IS. some sites say the 17-40mm is better, but i need more virsitility than that.

    the sigma is not as wide, but its a faster lens and cheeper.

    after typing this out and thinking about it a little more im leaning towards the sigma. :hs:
     
  22. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tamron 17-55 f.2.8

    new tokina with similar range and aperature coming this fall
     
  23. Paul Revere

    Paul Revere OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 19, 2003
    Messages:
    38,938
    Likes Received:
    177
    Location:
    Cali-NO NFA-fornia
    i'd like something with a little more range than that. something 70+
     
  24. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    Tamron is 17 50, the Canon is 17-55
     
  25. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    meh, doesn't really matter on that side. the tamron is 2.8 though, instead of slow to next week, but with image stabilization
     

Share This Page