I know, I know, these posts are getting a bit boring, but I would still appreciate some input from you photographers out there. Through circumstances my kit is in need of another lens. You can see what I have in my sig. I plan to add a new lens and I have narrowed it down to the Tamron 28-75 and the Canon 85 1.8. I am wanting a lens to pair with the Tokina for walk around purposes and use when my 50 1.8 is not long enough but I don't want to use the big 70-200 2.8. I think the Tamron is more versatile, but I really like the idea of USM and 1.8. The prices are close enough I can swing either. I would really like the Canon 24-70, but the budget says no right now. One thing that worries me about the Tamron is the focus ring moving. My Tokina does that and it is my least favorite feature of the lens. I am adjusting to it, and I am sure I would on the Tamron as well, but I wish it didn't do it. So, if it were you, which would you buy?

Thanks
Dan

Edited by DynaSport on Dec 08, 2006 at 05:25 PM GMT

I have the Tamron 28-75 and it is my most used lens. Ill probably pick up the 85 1.8 as well soon but I personally like the flexibility of the zoom and the IQ of the 28-75 is really very good. There is an 11 page thread right now debating whether its as good as the 24-70.

My 85 1.8 showed up 2 days ago, a great lens for the money.

If I were in your situation, I would have got an 85 1.8. Or I should say that, I have a similar combination - a sigma 18-50 2.8 and an 85 1.8. My 85 1.8 is a sharp, fast lens. Since you are looking for extra reach and have already covered 19-35 and 50mm so in my opinion a dedicated longer focal length lens, which has excellent quality, fast focus and fast aperture, adds more value than a versatile 28-75 since you have that range already covered for most part. For me the only case where 28-75 would add more variety to your existing lenses is at 28 2.8 where it would be faster than your 19-35 and thus might perform better for indoor people shots.

They're rather different lenses so it's hard to compare. For what it's worth, I wouldn't worry about the lack of USM on the Tamron. It focuses plenty fast, although not as quietly. The image quality is definitely impressive.

I may very well pick up an 85 f/1.8 one day too, in spite of its redundant redundancy in my lineup, just because it sounds like a neat lens. I guess if I put myself in the position of choosing between these two, I would find out how well the 85mm does wide open. If you have to stop it down to f/2.8 or f/4 to get really sharp images, then it won't do much that the Tamron doesn't already do. If you can shoot at f/1.8, then that changes things.

The 85 USM is a great little lens and for the 20D the 18-50 or 2.8 from Sigma, comes to mind, however, I have seen quite good results with the Tammy 28-75, just not very wide.




Tom

I own both, and both are great lenses with totally different uses. My 85 1.8 is a great sports lens for swimming, bball, gymnastics etc. Quick focusing, good bokeh, sharp.

The tammy is probably one of the best zooms in that range and for the price, everyone should have one. Sharp as a tac, great color. The only downside is that it is not fast enough IMO for sports. As a general walkaround it's awesome.


Ron

I would trade the 19-35 for a Tamron 17-50/2.8 and get a 100/2 to cover the tele end.

boissez wrote:
I would trade the 19-35 for a Tamron 17-50/2.8 and get a 100/2 to cover the tele end.

I don't disagree with that recommendation, but I only have money for one lens right now. And the 19-35 is a lot better than I expected, it's just not a fast lens.

Dan

SwimmerDad wrote:
I own both, and both are great lenses with totally different uses. My 85 1.8 is a great sports lens for swimming, bball, gymnastics etc. Quick focusing, good bokeh, sharp.

The tammy is probably one of the best zooms in that range and for the price, everyone should have one. Sharp as a tac, great color. The only downside is that it is not fast enough IMO for sports. As a general walkaround it's awesome.


Ron

Ron, do you mean the focus is not fast enough for sports?

Dan