I am now looking at:

Tamron Autofocus 28-75mm f2.8<..."> I am now looking at:

Tamron Autofocus 28-75mm f2.8<..."/>

BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Answers

BetterPhoto Member		What's more important - IS or f2.8? I am still on the hunt for an all purpose, "walk around" lens. These seem to get decent ratings. I am now looking at: Tamron Autofocus 28-75mm f2.8 or Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM What are your opinions? To love this question, log in above January 20, 2008

- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery		Aperture. To love this comment, log in above January 20, 2008

- Dennis Flanagan Contact Dennis Flanagan Dennis Flanagan's Gallery		Aperture, IS is nice, but you'll never miss it unless you plan on shooting a lot of photos at slow shutter speeds. To love this comment, log in above January 20, 2008

- Carlton Ward Contact Carlton Ward Carlton Ward's Gallery		I have the Tamron 28-75 and it is a good lens (worth the price) and I have been able to get some good low light shots with it. It stays in my bag now since I recently got the 24-70mm f/2.8 L - I chose the 24-70 lens over the 24-105mm f/4 L IS, because I didn't think I really needed the IS and wanted the faster f/2.8 instead. My friend has the 28-135 and he gets nice photos with that lens as well. From what I have seen with the Canon 28-135 compared to the Tamron 28-75, I think the Canon is a little sharper and the Tamron has warmer colors. You may also one day consider the Canon 70-200 f/4 L (non-IS version) for about $550, it may be the best lens ever made in that price range. Hope I am not confusing you more. I think either lens will work well for you. Someday when you try an L lens, you will have an even tougher decision to make - like eating for the month or buying the L lens :o) BTW - I am losing weight rapidly... To love this comment, log in above January 20, 2008

Pete H		Hello Hilary, Tuff question actually. Some would argue that IS or VR is like having 3 to 4 xtra stops. It is an arguement I agree with. IS/VR is great for STATIC subjects only..it does nothing in preventing blur from image motion. The answer may well be more opinion than fact. I have a VR lens and find it invaluable in what I mostly shoot. While a 2.8 does indeed gather more light, hand holding will still prove difficult under 1/30th..some people can hand hold down to a 1/10th, but that is pushing it. The gain from 2.8 compared to 3.5 is marginal at best. (i.e) I would rather shoot at f/8 or better in most situations for sharpness considerations alone. If I zoom to let's say 100mm and shoot at 1/60th, with IS/VR I will probably get the shot..very doubtful hand holing with a NON IS/VR. all the best, Pete To love this comment, log in above January 20, 2008

Sharon Day		I have to agree with Pete here. I have a telephoto zoom with VR and could not be happier with the performance. I use it mostly for shooting wildlife and consider VR invaluable for wildlife shooting. To love this comment, log in above January 20, 2008

John P. Sandstedt		I personally don't consider a 28-75 or 28-105 lens a walkaround lens. Based on my vacations to the Pacific Northwest, Hawaii and the Greek Isles, my walking around lens was a Tamron 28-200 mm lens on my Canon EOS 3. I purchased the Canon 17-85 mm IS zoom when I got my Canon 30D; I made a bad mistake as the equivalent 28- 135 mm is just too narrow. I receommended the 18-250 mm Tamron to my son for his 30D and I think it has stailization. Sure, it's only got a f/3.8-5.6 aperture range, by using ISO 1600 or 3200, who cares. ANd, I haven't noticed any noise problems to date at these high ISOs. To love this comment, log in above January 21, 2008

This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here Report this Thread