I'm going crazy! OK, your best General Purpose Lens?

[Abstract]

The Tamron 28-75 is "a good lens for the money" it is not however sharper than the 24-70L. It is pretty good at the center but has big problems on the corners, even on a crop camera. I have to wonder if people who have the Tamron and post a review on FM have actually ever used a 24-70L?

Still considering the cost difference not a bad lens.

Well some people at FM posted reviews saying they actually switched from the Canon to the Tamron because their Canon wasn't as sharp as they thought it would be, although I'm sure that some people who bought the Canon 24-70 did so because their Tamron wasn't as sharp as the Canon.


And while I didn't see this when I was interested in this lens (it's quite a new site and they didn't have many reviews 6 months ago), here's another group that tested the MTF. Notice that I put up the test of the Canon 24-70 mm against the Tamron 28-75 mm f/2.8 with Nikon mount. They don't have a review for a Tamron with Canon mount yet, but it's likely to be similar.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_2470_28/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_2875_28_nikon/index.htm


I like the Nikon 18-200 mm, but I don't like how small the aperture is. If I want actual snapshots with little blur in any photo, I'd just use my point and shoot.

I could see myself being like Mike Teezie one day and completely forgetting about the middle range of focal lengths. Oh well, my Sigma is a keeper.

 

[snap58]

Well some people at FM posted reviews saying they actually switched from the Canon to the Tamron because their Canon wasn't as sharp as they thought it would be, although I'm sure that some people who bought the Canon 24-70 did so because their Tamron wasn't as sharp as the Canon.


And while I didn't see this when I was interested in this lens (it's quite a new site and they didn't have many reviews 6 months ago), here's another group that tested the MTF. Notice that I put up the test of the Canon 24-70 mm against the Tamron 28-75 mm f/2.8 with Nikon mount. They don't have a review for a Tamron with Canon mount yet, but it's likely to be similar.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_2470_28/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_2875_28_nikon/index.htm


I like the Nikon 18-200 mm, but I don't like how small the aperture is. If I want actual snapshots with little blur in any photo, I'd just use my point and shoot.

I could see myself being like Mike Teezie one day and completely forgetting about the middle range of focal lengths. Oh well, my Sigma is a keeper.

It is the higher resolution D200 compared with the Rebel 350 too. I was looking at this, both on the same camera I assume?

http://the-digital-picture.com/Revi...101&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0&Camera=9&CameraComp=9

While the center is very sharp the rest doesn't appear so?

 

[sjl]

Gary. Listen to me. Buy it. I am blown away by the thing literally every time I shoot with it.

Damnit. I want it. Changeover price is "just" $AU1000 (or so, if I sell the 17-85mm and the 20D). But then I need a standard lens, and there's only three I'd be willing to put on that body ... one (the 28-70 f/2.8) is discontinued, and the others (24-70 f/2.8, and 24-105 f/4) are another $1700 or more on top of the changeover for the body. But these factors are making me ponder the purchase of the 10-22mm, in favour of saving up for the 5D instead with a good L walkaround zoom.

As for the OT: I don't mind the EF-S 17-85; the only gripes I have about it are (a) very noticeable barrel distortion, and (b) its speed (f/3.5, I think, at the wide end.) Still, for what it is, it's a decent zoom.

 

[Karpfish]

My 50 1.8 is on my 20D almost all the time. Its sharp!

 

[law guy]

My 24-105 f4 L IS. I liked it more than the 24-70 f2.8L that I tried for two weeks. It was slightly shaper, more versitile - 50% larger image at full zoom - and while 2.8 allows you to double your shutter speed, if you're at 1/15th of a second, that doesn't help you much to get a clear shot with steady objects where as IS will allow you to hand hold down to very slow speeds. The weight and size is perfect on my 30D. The colors are fantastic. It's just a tremendous lens.

 

[Mike Teezie]

Damnit. I want it. Changeover price is "just" $AU1000 (or so, if I sell the 17-85mm and the 20D). But then I need a standard lens, and there's only three I'd be willing to put on that body ... one (the 28-70 f/2.8) is discontinued, and the others (24-70 f/2.8, and 24-105 f/4) are another $1700 or more on top of the changeover for the body. But these factors are making me ponder the purchase of the 10-22mm, in favour of saving up for the 5D instead with a good L walkaround zoom.

As for the OT: I don't mind the EF-S 17-85; the only gripes I have about it are (a) very noticeable barrel distortion, and (b) its speed (f/3.5, I think, at the wide end.) Still, for what it is, it's a decent zoom.

Come on, you deserve a 5D. You owe it to yourself. I swear, I really could just have that camera and a 50mm of any flavor (preferably the 1.2L) - and be completely, head over heels happy.

Yes, I am the devil on your shoulder - whispering sweet nothings of full-frame magic into your ear. Buuuuyyyyyyyyy iiiitttttttt.......

My 24-105 f4 L IS. I liked it more than the 24-70 f2.8L that I tried for two weeks. It was slightly shaper, more versitile - 50% larger image at full zoom - and while 2.8 allows you to double your shutter speed, if you're at 1/15th of a second, that doesn't help you much to get a clear shot with steady objects where as IS will allow you to hand hold down to very slow speeds. The weight and size is perfect on my 30D. The colors are fantastic. It's just a tremendous lens.

I've heard that it's a wonderful lens. Brian, the guy who runs the-digital-picture.com, said that if he could only have one lens, that would be the one. That's quite a statement, considering he owns EVERY lens in the Canon lineup. Even in the 600mm f/4L IS. That statement alone really makes me want to try one out, just to see how good it is.

 

[kevinliu4]

I've heard that it's a wonderful lens. Brian, the guy who runs the-digital-picture.com, said that if he could only have one lens, that would be the one. That's quite a statement, considering he owns EVERY lens in the Canon lineup. Even in the 600mm f/4L IS. That statement alone really makes me want to try one out, just to see how good it is.

I saw that too. Unfortunately, at the moment, it's not within my budget. I hope to run around a bit tomorrow with my Tamron 28-75mm.

 

[amin]

I'm going crazy reading and re-reading all the reviews, looking at pictures etc.

I am getting a new general purpose lens today! I have a long weekend and want to get out there and shoot!

I've got the Canon 350D and just bought a 50mm f/1.4. I've decided I don't want to lug around too many lenses so for the time being, I am just going to replace the kit 18-55mm. This means I will need some versatility in the lens.

I have looked at Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 but have heard while the pictures are sharp, build quality is not as good as Canon and with less features. The Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L looks amazing and I like that it's wider but is crazy expensive. At the same time, I want something that will last and have good resale value. The Canon 24-105mm f4 also looks great and adds some focal length but again, very expensive. The cheaper Canon models I've looked at have not received great reviews, those being the 28-135mm and others. I've decided I want quality first and am willing to pay for it. I'm even selling stuff on ebay!

What is your vote for best general purpose lens? Thanks guys. Greatly appreciate it!!

What do you consider "general purpose"? I wouldn't consider a lens that won't go wider than 28mm (equivalent to 45mm in 35mm terms) to be suitable for general purposes. If I could have only one lens for my 350D, it would be the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. I didn't want to spend the $$$ for that lens, and therefore bought the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens. The Tamron is extremely sharp. The only real weakness I have found is that the quality of bokeh is not great. The Canon's isn't all that great either, but it is far better than the Tamron's. I am happy with my purchase. Good luck with your decision!