28-75mm 2.8?

[BQ22]

So I took my daughter to the park and was taking pictures. I have prime lenses 24,50,85 and found i may want a zoom lens. I have a kit lens but didn't bother, just switched between 24 and 50. My question is.....Is the tamron 28-75mm 2.8 a good lens for APS-C sensor? I'm looking for a zoom lens that won't break the bank. Would a 17-50 2.8 be more practical since it's wider on the APS-C? Any advise or direction would be appreciated.

 

[Derrel]

The 24 millimeter Prime you have is effectively a 38.4 mm lens on your Canon, whereas the bottom end of the 28-75 zoom would be a 44.8 mm lens. So, in Practical terms the 28 - 75 mm lens works out to be a 45 to 120mm zoom.

According to Roger at lensrentals.com, the pre vibration control 28 - 75 mm is by far the better lens. Roger listed getting rid of his rental company'd stock of pre vibration control 28-75 lenses as one of his life's biggest mistakes. The newer VC control model is apparently not nearly as good a lens as the older pre-VC model.

Anyway the 17 - 50 mm zoom gives you a wide angle option which is something that the 28 - 75 really lacks. I think for social photography, such as family events, or photographing one's child on a playground, a wide-angle option is very useful. On the other hand for a person who might like to stand back from 10 to 15 feet and shoot from afar, or for general outdoor photography a 45 - 120 mm Zoom would be a very good lens choice for many types of picture making.

Probably the most telling is that there are a lot of Zooms for aps-c cameras which have a short end that begins at either 16,17, or 18mm.

 

[BQ22]

Any thoughts on the sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4? This might work out well.

 

[Derrel]

I think Sigma made some very wise decisions when designing that lens. They selected a very useful focal length, and went with the f/2.8~f/4 variable maximum aperture to save size and weight. In the past Nikon had an 18 - 70 mm Zoom. I think that Sigma realized they needed to offer a better lens in terms of maximum f-stop so they went with the F 2.8 at the wide end and the F4 at the longer end.

I have not personally used this lens but I understand exactly why Sigma designed this particular lens. I think as a non-camera-maker-brand lens, this would be a good lens to consider for an aps-c Canon. I would definitely check out some reviews on it and see what you think. In terms of the angle of view the difference between 17mm and 28mm is positively huge.

 

[BQ22]

Well it seems to fit the bill at first glance. Time to save. In the mean time. I'll practice more with the primes. I'm just getting into this and have enjoyed it so far.

 

[Derrel]

Since you asked for advice in your first post, and only now do I realize you're just getting into this, I'd like to point out that using prime lenses can help you build a skill that many people do not have, and that is learning what perspective will make the best picture. The photographic term perspective is often misused these days, but it refers to the way a lens renders a scene based on camera to subject distance. Not on focal length, but how far away the camera is from the subject. The photographer who learns to control perspective will be a much better photographer then the person who just Zooms in and out in and out and finally settles on some focal length at random.

Learning advanced photography using prime lenses will give you the ability to look at a scene and to mentally create a picture in your mind's eye and you can do this easily if you learn by using the primes.

I think for the beginning shooter, it can be very helpful to start out with prime lenses which have fairly different "looks' to the images they create. Going between the 24mm and 50mm, you have roughly the short and the long end of the classic 35 to 70 millimeter zoom lens of days gone by.

The 24mm on aps-c gives a semi wide angle of view that covers left or right about 1 foot for each foot from the camera to the subject. The 50mm on aps-c gives a very short short telephoto look. The 85mm on aps-c gives almost the angle of view of a 135 millimeter telephoto lens, which is a very good lens length for close-up pictures of people's faces, and for detail shots, and many landscape uses. These are all lenses which can be learned fairly easily.

What you lack now in a prime at least is a true wide-angle view lens. I myself typically do not find wide-angle pictures all that interesting or enthralling in many cases. To me the most interesting angles of view andbthe most interesting perspectives come from the semi wide-angle, normal, and telephoto lenses. The reason these lenses give interesting pictures is that they force the shooter to move the camera forward or backward, and to be in the right position, to give interesting perspective to the photos that are created. Again I think for the beginning shooter, serious photography is best learned by using distinct, separate angles of view, and by exploring what camera to subject distance does in terms of creating interesting pictures.

There's an old saying, "Zoom with your feet." What that actually means is likely not apparent to many people who learned with zoom lenses. The secret to many interesting pictures is not the focal length that was used, but where the photographer actually positioned the camera.

 

[table1349]

 

[JonA_CT]

Derrel gave you a lot of great advice, but I figured I'd throw my own personal experience in with the Sigma 17-70. When I owned my Canon SL1, that was the zoom I decided to buy. I bought it used for around $300 on eBay in mint condition, and I've seen them around $200 since.

I found the lens to be perfect to learn on. It covers a wide-range of focal length, and renders very nicely. It's also relatively fast, and at least for me, I used the shorter end much more frequently inside where light was tough. I eventually ended up learning how to bounce a speed light to mitigate some of the lighting challenges, and I loved the lens even more.

A couple of sample images...you can click to full at them full-res.

20160124-_MG_3483 by jwa04, on Flickr

day 9 bw by jwa04, on Flickr

20160105-_MG_2975 by jwa04, on Flickr

 

[BQ22]

Excellent!

 

[jcdeboever]

I have the sigma 17-50 2.8 on a AP-C Nikon and I use it mainly at tractor shows. I like getting up close when they're moving and throw the wide end at it, really makes them look big, more dramatic. On non moving tractors, you can get just about any model all the way in the frame and crop square. Also good for general shooting. Just a real convenient focal range, I have read the 17-70 is good too but I was given this lens for helping someone move.

Sent from my XT1254 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[minicoop1985]

I've had both the 17-50 2.8 and the 28-75 2.8. They're both nice and sharp lenses, though they do suffer some chromatic abberation. At close range, it's VERY apparent. IF you can swing a little more ($600), you COULD snag a Canon 24-70 f4 L. I paid $650 for mine from Lensauthority.

 

[R0ck3tm@n]

I'm in the opposite boat. Despite the >$6500 invested in lenses I prefer my 50mm 1.4 prime at $400 over my (then) $2400 24-70 2.8. I'm considering selling my 24-70 for a 50 1.2 due to the low light conditions in which I mostly shoot.

Love my 70-200, my favorite lens of all time but need the room for the short end and usually don't have it unless I'm outside.


Canon 5DMk3 | 24-70 2.8 II | 70-200 2.8L IS II | 100 2.8L Macro | 50 1.4