Lens advice (am I overlooking one)

[jaomul]

Hi All. I am using a crop (d7100) but want something slightly more telephoto than a kit but fast. This will be for lower light events (but its only a small part of my shooting). The tamron 28-75mm f2.8 seems the ideal choice for me as I want longer than 50/55 but dont really need the wider angle.

I will likely buy in the next few days, but just before I do, is there any lens in similar clothes that I should consider above this one, thanks

 

[LostLensCap]

Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 for crop sensor.
Sigma 50-150mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM - Telephoto Zoom Lenses - SigmaPhoto.com

 

[fjrabon]

Why wouldn't you go 70 (or 80)-200 f/2.8? It's one of the standard workhorse lenses that almost every photographer owns or should own.

 

[jaomul]

Sorry guys, thanks for input but I meant lenses in and around the same focal length as the 28-75 ish

 

[astroNikon]

Other than the multiple 24-70/2.8's ?

 

[jaomul]

When I said "similar clothes" I meant similar price and similar focal length. I just wondered if there was a better but similar option than this lens.

 

[astroNikon]

There's the 24-85s ... the f/3.5-4.5 G AF-S and the AF-D(2.8-4.0)

 

[jaomul]

So are you saying I should consider all these above the Tammy

 

[JustJazzie]

I have the 28-105 3.5-4.5 afd. It's old, but you can get it used off of keh for like $160. Sharp, nice colors, has a handy macro mode, and is very lightweight! I love mine! Definitely something to at least consider.

 

[nerwin]

Unless you are planning on switching to full frame soon, then I see no point in getting a 24-70mm lens.

You should seriously take a look at Sigma's new contemporary 17-70 2.8-4. Its a nice lens, gives you a wide angle and a bit of a tele while being faster than f/3.5-5.6. It also has pretty decent optical stabilization.

 

[PropilotBW]

Unless you are planning on switching to full frame soon, then I see no point in getting a 24-70mm lens.

You should seriously take a look at Sigma's new contemporary 17-70 2.8-4. Its a nice lens, gives you a wide angle and a bit of a tele while being faster than f/3.5-5.6. It also has pretty decent optical stabilization.

I agree. I had this lens, and loved it. It was very sharp and fulfilled the same need that you're asking for.

 

[weepete]

The Sigma is a good lens but for low light a constant f2.8 would be significantly better IMO.

 

[Braineack]

I have the 28-105 3.5-4.5 afd. It's old, but you can get it used off of keh for like $160. Sharp, nice colors, has a handy macro mode, and is very lightweight! I love mine! Definitely something to at least consider.

agree. this was the Lens Across America Round 3 lens and was actually a pretty decent lens and you can pick them up for a song. If I didn't already have a 24-70 2.8 I'd consider it as a walkaround lens.

 

[jaomul]

Thanks all. I'll go with the original plan, Tamron 28-75 it is. The others mentioned either don't have fixed aperture through out range or are out of budget. I realize this lens is designed for full frame, but it's the range I use most when doing family events etc, thanks again