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 0 January 20, 2008

- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery		Aperture. To love this comment, log in above 0 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 0 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 0 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 0 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 0 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 0 January 21, 2008

Log in to respond or ask your own question.