Good For Low Light ? - Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 (Canon EF)

gothgirl

gothgirl

Messages
1,589
Edit My Images
Yes
Would this be a good lens for low light use, and to replace the 18-55 kit lens ?

Seen this and it looks ideal for what I want and reviews look good too

I've been looking for something sharper to replace the kit lens... and something a bit faster and better in low light

this seems to check all the boxes :)
 
Last edited:
•
The main qualities one should look after when contemplating low light conditions
are of two orders:
1 high native ISO —camera relevant
2 bright apertures —lens relevant

The quest for light is a very expensive area as both require high end technologies
and gear …light is free, capturing it is not!
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•
The main qualities one should look after when contemplating low light conditions
are of two orders:
1 high native ISO —camera relevant
2 bright apertures —lens relevant

The quest for light is a very expensive area as both require high end technologies
and gear …light is free, capturing it is not!
Click to expand...

That's great
But doesn't answer my questions

I'm not asking for perfection
Just if it will be better than the kit lens
 
This was one of the first lenses I ever bought (around 2009)

It should be a lot better than your kit lens

I found it to be amazing for the money but I think I had a particularly good one.
 
manualfocus-g said:
If you have a crop sensor camera, then the Tamron SP 17-50/2.8 would be a more appropriate choice. I had the 28-75/2.8 on full frame, it was sharp at f/2.8 at 28mm but a bit soft at 75mm. AF wasn't very quick, not bad though.
Click to expand...

But would be a definite improvement
In the kit lens ?
 
gothgirl said:
But would be a definite improvement
In the kit lens ?
Click to expand...

Probably, is it a Canon lens? The IS version is sharper than the non-IS version. My SP was sharp from wide open at shorter focal lengths, but needed me to micro adjust the AF on the body.
 
manualfocus-g said:
Probably, is it a Canon lens? The IS version is sharper than the non-IS version. My SP was sharp from wide open at shorter focal lengths, but needed me to micro adjust the AF on the body.
Click to expand...

Yes ,
Canon 18-55 ef-s IS

Plus it's a EF lens so when I move to full frame in the future it's a keeper
 
Re the amron SP 17-50/2.8
An improvement in the light gathering ability.
IQ improvement - yes but not lot (it has been long time since I have used the Canon crop body kit lens).
Autofocus speed - mine tended to hunt a lot in low light - not good. (that's why I went with fast primes at the time)
 
Last edited:
RichardTaylor said:
Re the amron SP 17-50/2.8
An improvement in the light gathering ability.
IQ improvement - yes but not lot (it has been long time since I have used the Canon crop body kit lens).
Autofocus speed - mine tended to hunt a lot in low light - not good. (that's why I went with fast primes at the time)
Click to expand...

What about the sigma 17-50?

Current debate is

Sigma 17-50 2.8 or Tamron 28-75
 
I have the Tamron 17-50 2.8vc . As a walkabout I tend to have this on camera all of the time . iq is very good and I'm lead to believe that the non vc is even better , just not for me with my shaking nerve's lol . On crop the reach is good and I only swap for my 24-105L when I think I really need to . They can be picked up second hand at very reasonable prices too .
 
Last edited:
It doesn't have stabilization, but it allows more light through. So you will get a faster shutter speed, but depending on subject and your handling skills might not make add much difference as you might hope. I have one, for a ff body, and use a sigma 17-50 f2.8 on a crop if that helps
 
It all depends on whether you get a good one. Part of the reason people have such vastly different opinions on lenses is down to QC issues - especially with third party manufacturers.
 
What Dean and one or two others have said above. As a huge generalisation 3rd party lenses like Sigma/Tamron have variable quality optics and consequently you tend to find a peoples experiences are variable. As a further generalism lenses at this price point tend not to be sharp wide open but some people are lucky and get good copies, many get average copies and a few get some that are a bit soft. It further depends on how it fits with your camera as that also has variables. As a generalised answer, the 17-50 is likely to perform a better and give you better low light capabilities as you'll gain a couple of stops. That will also give you more artistic capability, i.e. wide open shallow depth of field. The 28-75 will perform similarly but personally it could be a bit long on a crop body but that depends on the focal length you tend to favour mostly. If you want to play with something sharp and good in low light, you might want to consider a Canon 50mm f1.8 or maybe something around 35mm. Not familiar with the Canon range to be honest as I'm a Nikon/Fuji shooter but the principles are the same.
 
I have a 50mm 1.8
Which I still find very soft when wide open

I want something to replace my kit lens as a walkabout , but I also want something that will perform better in low light .

Hence looking for something in 2.8 , with a focal range starting under 50mm
 
I too use the 17-50 (non vc) on my 7D and find it great as a walk around lens. Agree that it hunts in low light but it is a lot of quality for the cost (£150-200 second hand would be my guess now)
J
 
As I was considering a 24-70L lens...

I thought It might make more sense to replace my 18-55 kit lens, with a 16-35L (rather than the 24-70) as I already have a 50mm 1.8 and the 55-250.

When I am working in low light it's either urban exlporing building (so need under 50mm) or it's dog showing, so again need under 50mm.

Pretty sure the 16-35L can be had for less than the 24-70L as well which means its more budget friendly too :)
 
gothgirl said:
As low as possible, but the more I ask questions about lenses it seems it is impossible to buy a lens better at low light than the kit lens without spending upwards of £300!
Click to expand...

Well I thought you might have learnt from your previous 'low light' thread!!!! :)

A couple of other options, but both north of £300 :-

S/H Sigma 18-35 f1.8 only for crop sensors though, not many available s/h and around £400
S/H Tamron 24-70 VC Di f2.8 - suitable for both FF and Crop sensors, I sold mine for £375, but it's big and heavy but does have VC which the Canon's don't

But 24mm won't be great on a crop sensor shooting inside urban-exploring type buildings.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Well I thought you might have learnt from your previous 'low light' thread!!!! :)

A couple of other options, but both north of £300 :-

S/H Sigma 18-35 f1.8 only for crop sensors though, not many available s/h and around £400
S/H Tamron 24-70 VC Di f2.8 - suitable for both FF and Crop sensors, I sold mine for £375, but it's big and heavy but does have VC which the Canon's don't

But 24mm won't be great on a crop sensor shooting inside urban-exploring type buildings.
Click to expand...

Think I am going to try and save for the 16-35L

At the mo my glass is failing my camera, But then I wonder, with amazing L glass performance how long it will be before my camera fails my glass and I have to save up again to go full frame.

Expensive lark this photography hobby, who'd have thought.
. :withstupid:
 
I use a Sigma 17-50 2.8 os on my Nikon 7000 and it's a great lens. Better than the kit lenses I had.
No issues with sharpness for me.
I know it's not canon though so maybe not much help.
 
It's not totally clear what you are attempting to achieve. If you want fast glass and sharp wide open, or close to, you have to pay for it. Then it's down to technique. However, this assumes you are doing handheld images so you can shoot at fast apertures. I'm a bit surprised though as many of the urban ex images I've seen are building interiors requiring a reasonable depth of field and often done on a tripod or some support. In that case you'd probably be shooting at f5.6 to f11. Many lenses will be barely indistinguishable from each other on image quality at about f8 shot carefully on a tripod.
 
Let's just say there's little light , and no time to set up a tripod ... And it's not the easiest carrying a tripod about

But ignoring that for now


for the most part I need a fast lens in low light
 
I'm guessing you're in & out of the buildings rather quickly if I understand you correctly ;)! Your choices seem to be bouncing from one lens to another, which is always the way when you start researching a lens! The best course of action is to work out exactly what you need the lens for, I.e portraiture, landscape, macro etc etc. once you know exactly what you need the lens choice becomes easier. If your need is for interior architecture shots (where you do need to be able to set up quickly & get out quickly) maybe stick with your lens and use a mono pod (similar to a previous post), sometimes the lens doesn't make the difference but the equipment to go with it, for example grad filters & landscape? If you do need f2.8 for brightness avoid the 24-70mm as they are big heavy lumps. Stick to the 17-55 types. Hopefully this makes sense, has been a long day
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top