Looking for an everyday f2.8 Lens.

DarknFuzzy

DarknFuzzy

Messages
604
Edit My Images
Yes
Has anyone had any experiance with these lenses or has an alternative they would like to suggest? Any input you have would be gratefully recieved. I probably should add that it will be replacing my kit lens, i'm looking for something with a little more reach and F2.8 throughout the range.

Here are the possibles i've seen so far:

Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 EX DG (67mm)

Tamron AF 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di (67mm)

Obviously there is the Pentax but unfortunately i didn't win the lottery this Saturday. :bang:

Thanks in advance.
 
Im sure you will hear good reviews of both on here.
I personally have the Tamron and it stays on most of the time as my walkabout lens. (y)
 
I'm not sure they go wide enough to count as an 'everyday' lens. Have you thought about the Sigma 17-70? Very sharp with macro, and it's f2.8 at the short end (f4.5 at 70mm).

There's the Sigma 18-50 which is also very good and f2.8 throughout but perhaps doesn't reach as far as you'd like.
 
I had the Sigma 28-70 F2.8 and was not really impressed with it. It is just way too soft at F2.8.

That said, the build quality was much better then the Tamron.

I would personally go with a Sigma 18-50 F2.8, which I owned when I still shot Pentax, and it was very good.
 
my own view, and the reason I got rid of the tamron is that at 2.8 it's not fantastic with horrible edges and generally soft. Stopped down it's cracking though.

The sigma 17-70mm is more consistent than the tamron in that although it's not as sharp in the centre, across the focal and aperture range it's a decent performer and the focal range is ideal I think.

I don't know about the newer sigma 18-50mm or tammy 17-50mm or there is the tokina flavour which looks hard to beat for build quality. I'd suggest going to a well stocked camera shop and take your body as it's the only way to know if you can live with the quirks of an individual lens.
 
Thank you all, your input has certainly given me more to think about, i had looked at the 17-50 but really want the extra reach. The 17-70 I hadn't looked at, although i wanted f2.8 through out the range i think i would be silly not to consider it as an option.

Oh decisions decisions.....
 
I've had the Tamron 28-75 and absolutely loved it. I didn't have any issues of it being soft.

The only reason I upgraded was that it was a little slow in focussing in low light. Thats my reason for upgrading to L glass :)
 
Personally I use the Tamron 28-75 lens, very sharp and I would recommend it highly. However I have a 10-20 Sigma to back it up so, not sure it would be wide enough, depending on your personal needs
 
I find it interesting how people can have different experiences with the same lenses. Differences with build quality perhaps?

I think though that the choice is either the Tammy 28-75 2.8 and the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5.

I dont do that many shots requiring a wide lens, 17-70 would obviously cover this but i would loose the 2.8. Even so I think i am leaning towards the 17-70.

Thank you folks, you have all been really helpful. (y)
 
Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 ?

Slightly wider but still got the reach.
 
I was interested to see the comments about these lenses. I read many reviews before opting for the Tamron 28-75 XR Di lens.

It has the ability to be a great lens at times but one comment that came up often enough in reviews to worry me was that they have inconsistent build quality. I took what i considered to be a gamble with the price vs. quality decision when buying it.

Lo and behold; mine is soft at f2.8. It took a while to notice but I kept getting shots that exhibited a sort of halo, as though I was using some diffusion. After a few annoying results I noticed that rather than being symmetrical it is lop-sided which suddenly reminded me of the reviews I had read.

You might suggest that this is acceptable when pushing any lens wide open, but in my case it is bad enough to make the shots unusable.

I did a very quick lens test with a chart (far from perfectly executed) but there it is; a lop-sided halo at f2.8. So I will be contacting Tamron to see what they have to say.

Would be interested to hear from anyone else with similar problems.

Gabriel
 
the tamron 28-75 I had was unusable at 2.8. Other people have different experiences. For the most part it was an extremely sharp lens though.

I tried many smaller lens combinations from sigma and tamron and in the end I plumped for the canon 17-55mm as I was never 100% happy with the alternatives.
 
Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 ?

Slightly wider but still got the reach.
Click to expand...

I have this and am very very very happy with it..
 
Sigma 24-60 gets my vote its F2.8 mine is quite useable at 2.8 Its cheaper than the 24-70 and its filter size is smaller, warehouse express £199
 
I don't know if its too far out of your budget but I bought a canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS which I have been absolutely chuffed to bits with. A rarely use other lenses now. It's really sharp and the IS means I get away with stupidly slow shutter speeds too! Great for gigs etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top