Seriously Torn (Mid-range zoom, Tam 28-75 vs Can 28-135)

[E Scott Cragg]

I know, this general theme is often asked but... I have 8 hours to decide what I want to purchase and... 10 minutes ago I was sure I was going with the Tamron 28-75, but all of a sudden I'm confused again...

I like the idea of a good, fast mid-range zoom... The Tamron is all those (From what I've read). I especially love ambient low-light photography (hand held)... I figure the combination of f2.8 and iso 1600-3200 (if pushed) would be great for what I desire.

I currently use an IS camera, however (C2100) and I do love the IS feature... I never really considered the 28-135 IS however because I thought it was too expensive, not to mention the fact its 1-2 stops slower. Yes the Image stabalizer alows an extra 2 stops (especially with my steady hands - I have a lot of practice with IS), but the added motion blur in the image makes that proposal iffy at best... and I've heard the 28-135 is fairly iffy in low-light.

Then I read a post from someone owning a 135 that said something so simple and stupid, I'm kicking myself for not thinking of it earlier...

I was planning on throwing a 50/1.8 into my whole package just for fun this whole time... (can't beat the price/quality)

but doesn't that second lense compliment a 135 is lense a lot better? I can use the 50/1.8 for my low ambient light, yet I'll still get the better range of the 135 and keep the image stabalizer that I'm so used to.

The kicker is, onecall is running a deal right now where the 10D + 28-135 + 50/1.8 is only 50 dollars more expensive than the same package with the tamron unit... so price isn't an issue.

I hear disconcerting thing about the build quality of the Canon lense... that it gets dusty really easily. I also wonder if the more complicated canon lense might not last as long... but it seems to me that I'd be getting a significantly more versitile package with a lot less overlap with the 28-135/50mm combo than with the 28-75 and 50, even though the 28-75 is a far more ideal lense for the type of photography I enjoy by and of itself...

I dunno, as I said, I don't have a lot of time before this deal ends, I would love to hear whatever feedback you guys can get me. Thanks in advance!

 

[Scott Denmark]

I can't help with the Tamron because I don't have the one you mention but I do have the Tamron 90 mm macro. It is a very sharp lens but I am less than thrilled with the autofocus capabilities. I really don't think you can go wrong with the 28-135 and the 50mm F1.8. Both are good to excellent. The build quality of the 28-135 is very good and the 50mm is made of plastic but still a very good lens for the money. I would go for the two Canon's over the Tamron.

Scott...

I know, this general theme is often asked but... I have 8 hours to
decide what I want to purchase and... 10 minutes ago I was sure I
was going with the Tamron 28-75, but all of a sudden I'm confused
again...

I like the idea of a good, fast mid-range zoom... The Tamron is all
those (From what I've read). I especially love ambient low-light
photography (hand held)... I figure the combination of f2.8 and iso
1600-3200 (if pushed) would be great for what I desire.

I currently use an IS camera, however (C2100) and I do love the
IS feature... I never really considered the 28-135 IS however
because I thought it was too expensive, not to mention the fact its
1-2 stops slower. Yes the Image stabalizer alows an extra 2 stops
(especially with my steady hands - I have a lot of practice with
IS), but the added motion blur in the image makes that proposal
iffy at best... and I've heard the 28-135 is fairly iffy in
low-light.

Then I read a post from someone owning a 135 that said something so
simple and stupid, I'm kicking myself for not thinking of it
earlier...

I was planning on throwing a 50/1.8 into my whole package just for
fun this whole time... (can't beat the price/quality)

but doesn't that second lense compliment a 135 is lense a lot
better? I can use the 50/1.8 for my low ambient light, yet I'll
still get the better range of the 135 and keep the image stabalizer
that I'm so used to.

The kicker is, onecall is running a deal right now where the 10D +
28-135 + 50/1.8 is only 50 dollars more expensive than the same
package with the tamron unit... so price isn't an issue.

I hear disconcerting thing about the build quality of the Canon
lense... that it gets dusty really easily. I also wonder if the
more complicated canon lense might not last as long... but it seems
to me that I'd be getting a significantly more versitile package
with a lot less overlap with the 28-135/50mm combo than with the
28-75 and 50, even though the 28-75 is a far more ideal lense for
the type of photography I enjoy by and of itself...

I dunno, as I said, I don't have a lot of time before this deal
ends, I would love to hear whatever feedback you guys can get me.
Thanks in advance!

 

[E Scott Cragg]

Thanks for the comments

Yes, there is somethign appealing about staying all-canon, despite the rumors of poor QC.

I'd love to hear from a few Tamon/Sigma/Tokina owners...

-Scott

Scott...

I know, this general theme is often asked but... I have 8 hours to
decide what I want to purchase and... 10 minutes ago I was sure I
was going with the Tamron 28-75, but all of a sudden I'm confused
again...

I like the idea of a good, fast mid-range zoom... The Tamron is all
those (From what I've read). I especially love ambient low-light
photography (hand held)... I figure the combination of f2.8 and iso
1600-3200 (if pushed) would be great for what I desire.

I currently use an IS camera, however (C2100) and I do love the
IS feature... I never really considered the 28-135 IS however
because I thought it was too expensive, not to mention the fact its
1-2 stops slower. Yes the Image stabalizer alows an extra 2 stops
(especially with my steady hands - I have a lot of practice with
IS), but the added motion blur in the image makes that proposal
iffy at best... and I've heard the 28-135 is fairly iffy in
low-light.

Then I read a post from someone owning a 135 that said something so
simple and stupid, I'm kicking myself for not thinking of it
earlier...

I was planning on throwing a 50/1.8 into my whole package just for
fun this whole time... (can't beat the price/quality)

but doesn't that second lense compliment a 135 is lense a lot
better? I can use the 50/1.8 for my low ambient light, yet I'll
still get the better range of the 135 and keep the image stabalizer
that I'm so used to.

The kicker is, onecall is running a deal right now where the 10D +
28-135 + 50/1.8 is only 50 dollars more expensive than the same
package with the tamron unit... so price isn't an issue.

I hear disconcerting thing about the build quality of the Canon
lense... that it gets dusty really easily. I also wonder if the
more complicated canon lense might not last as long... but it seems
to me that I'd be getting a significantly more versitile package
with a lot less overlap with the 28-135/50mm combo than with the
28-75 and 50, even though the 28-75 is a far more ideal lense for
the type of photography I enjoy by and of itself...

I dunno, as I said, I don't have a lot of time before this deal
ends, I would love to hear whatever feedback you guys can get me.
Thanks in advance!

--

C-2100 UZI (assuming that Olympus ever actually fixes it properly under warantee)

http://www.pbase.com/eridanman

 

[MarkG]

I had (still have actually) C2100. The 10x IS zoom is unmatched in DSLR world, and I still miss it. I had the same dilemma as you - 28-135 vs. Tamron 28-75. The only difference is I have a D30, and already had a 50mm 1.8 lens with it. I ended up getting a 28-75. For D30, the speed of the lens is more important that it is for 10D due to well documented low light AF problems on D30. However, even if I had a 10D I would still go for 28-75 for several reasons.

• even if you do not use F2.8 the 28-75 is much sharper at F4 and F5.6 than 28-135, at least this is what I'm getting from various 28-135 published tests. At 5.6 at tele end the 28-135 is wide open and not at its best. So, you'd have to stop it down more, say to F8.
• for portraits F5.6 is just too slow, and this is what I do most
• sure, IS would be really nice, but bumping up the ISO to 800 or 1600 is within reach on 10D (more so than on D30) I prefer to keep it at 400 or lower but 800 and 1600 are usable.
• the IS does nothing to freeze moving objects, that is if you are into sports shooting for example.

So, lets see. IS gives you realistically about 3 stops to combat the camera shake. The difference is reduced to 2 stops if you consider that Tamron is 1 stop faster. If you are willing to live with slightly more noise, and bump up the ISO, you'd get a difference of 0-1 stops.

The 28-75 is pretty sharp at F4 and up, and very usable at F2.8. For me it was more important than IS.
MarkG

I know, this general theme is often asked but... I have 8 hours to
decide what I want to purchase and... 10 minutes ago I was sure I
was going with the Tamron 28-75, but all of a sudden I'm confused
again...

I like the idea of a good, fast mid-range zoom... The Tamron is all
those (From what I've read). I especially love ambient low-light
photography (hand held)... I figure the combination of f2.8 and iso
1600-3200 (if pushed) would be great for what I desire.

I currently use an IS camera, however (C2100) and I do love the
IS feature... I never really considered the 28-135 IS however
because I thought it was too expensive, not to mention the fact its
1-2 stops slower. Yes the Image stabalizer alows an extra 2 stops
(especially with my steady hands - I have a lot of practice with
IS), but the added motion blur in the image makes that proposal
iffy at best... and I've heard the 28-135 is fairly iffy in
low-light.

Then I read a post from someone owning a 135 that said something so
simple and stupid, I'm kicking myself for not thinking of it
earlier...

I was planning on throwing a 50/1.8 into my whole package just for
fun this whole time... (can't beat the price/quality)

but doesn't that second lense compliment a 135 is lense a lot
better? I can use the 50/1.8 for my low ambient light, yet I'll
still get the better range of the 135 and keep the image stabalizer
that I'm so used to.

The kicker is, onecall is running a deal right now where the 10D +
28-135 + 50/1.8 is only 50 dollars more expensive than the same
package with the tamron unit... so price isn't an issue.

I hear disconcerting thing about the build quality of the Canon
lense... that it gets dusty really easily. I also wonder if the
more complicated canon lense might not last as long... but it seems
to me that I'd be getting a significantly more versitile package
with a lot less overlap with the 28-135/50mm combo than with the
28-75 and 50, even though the 28-75 is a far more ideal lense for
the type of photography I enjoy by and of itself...

I dunno, as I said, I don't have a lot of time before this deal
ends, I would love to hear whatever feedback you guys can get me.
Thanks in advance!

 

[E Scott Cragg]

It was exactly this reasoning that had me set on the Tamron lens...

There's no question to me that the tamron is the better lense for the specicfic photography I enjoy most.. but Its not the ONLY type of photography I enjoy.

What I'm wondering though, is will the 50/1.8 provide enough of an advantage in the realm of low-ambient light work to keep me entertained, while allowing me the greater reach of the 28-135 for more "general day-to-day/dusk" photgraphy...

when it comes down to it, the 50 1.8 (and all good primes really) is a far better choice for the ambient light work I want to do, so why bother to buy a zoom lense to cover it. Why not buy a decent all-around zoom lense (the 28-135is) that covers the "rest" of my photographic needs, and rely on primes for my niche work???

of course, having a good fast zoom would make that niche work easier and possibly more fun.... not to mention better image quality overall but is it worth the crimped overall flexibility?

(opinions welcome of course)

• even if you do not use F2.8 the 28-75 is much sharper at F4 and

F5.6 than 28-135, at least this is what I'm getting from various
28-135 published tests. At 5.6 at tele end the 28-135 is wide open
and not at its best. So, you'd have to stop it down more, say to F8.

• for portraits F5.6 is just too slow, and this is what I do most
• sure, IS would be really nice, but bumping up the ISO to 800 or

1600 is within reach on 10D (more so than on D30) I prefer to keep
it at 400 or lower but 800 and 1600 are usable.

• the IS does nothing to freeze moving objects, that is if you are

into sports shooting for example.

So, lets see. IS gives you realistically about 3 stops to combat
the camera shake. The difference is reduced to 2 stops if you
consider that Tamron is 1 stop faster. If you are willing to live
with slightly more noise, and bump up the ISO, you'd get a
difference of 0-1 stops.

The 28-75 is pretty sharp at F4 and up, and very usable at F2.8.
For me it was more important than IS.
MarkG

I know, this general theme is often asked but... I have 8 hours to
decide what I want to purchase and... 10 minutes ago I was sure I
was going with the Tamron 28-75, but all of a sudden I'm confused
again...

I like the idea of a good, fast mid-range zoom... The Tamron is all
those (From what I've read). I especially love ambient low-light
photography (hand held)... I figure the combination of f2.8 and iso
1600-3200 (if pushed) would be great for what I desire.

I currently use an IS camera, however (C2100) and I do love the
IS feature... I never really considered the 28-135 IS however
because I thought it was too expensive, not to mention the fact its
1-2 stops slower. Yes the Image stabalizer alows an extra 2 stops
(especially with my steady hands - I have a lot of practice with
IS), but the added motion blur in the image makes that proposal
iffy at best... and I've heard the 28-135 is fairly iffy in
low-light.

Then I read a post from someone owning a 135 that said something so
simple and stupid, I'm kicking myself for not thinking of it
earlier...

I was planning on throwing a 50/1.8 into my whole package just for
fun this whole time... (can't beat the price/quality)

but doesn't that second lense compliment a 135 is lense a lot
better? I can use the 50/1.8 for my low ambient light, yet I'll
still get the better range of the 135 and keep the image stabalizer
that I'm so used to.

The kicker is, onecall is running a deal right now where the 10D +
28-135 + 50/1.8 is only 50 dollars more expensive than the same
package with the tamron unit... so price isn't an issue.

I hear disconcerting thing about the build quality of the Canon
lense... that it gets dusty really easily. I also wonder if the
more complicated canon lense might not last as long... but it seems
to me that I'd be getting a significantly more versitile package
with a lot less overlap with the 28-135/50mm combo than with the
28-75 and 50, even though the 28-75 is a far more ideal lense for
the type of photography I enjoy by and of itself...

I dunno, as I said, I don't have a lot of time before this deal
ends, I would love to hear whatever feedback you guys can get me.
Thanks in advance!

--

C-2100 UZI (assuming that Olympus ever actually fixes it properly under warantee)

http://www.pbase.com/eridanman

 

[EMS]

Scott,

I just purchased the Tamron 28-75/f2.8 XR Di lens last week. I LOVE it so far. It is a little soft at 2.8 but still very usable for prints up to 8x10. I love shooting landscapes and portraits of my kids and this lens is perfect for what I do. I love having a constant f2.8 all the way through the zoom range if I need it. I used to own the Canon 28-135 IS when I shot film and never really liked it. I think I was unhappy with the image quality I was getting. Not a lot of contrast. I can't say if I would like it now with the 10D.

One thing I DID NOT like about the 28-135 was that it went to f5.6 very rapidly as you zoomed out. I like a lot of beautiful background blur and this lens did not give me anything like I wanted for portraits. The Tamron
28-75/f2.8 on the other hand gives beautiful results in this regard.

Here is a landscape I took last Saturday with my Tamron. It is composed of 4 images I stitched together:



This is a black and white I took of my son at f5.6:



Here is a 100% crop of his eyes from the original (unprocessed):

Thanks for the comments

Yes, there is somethign appealing about staying all-canon, despite
the rumors of poor QC.

I'd love to hear from a few Tamon/Sigma/Tokina owners...

-Scott

 

[E Scott Cragg]

I meant to note in the other thread, that landscape is spectacular... congrats.

does the 50/1.8 make a decent portrait lense? (the 1.6 crop puts it near an 80mm eq, which is in the right window)

-Scott

I just purchased the Tamron 28-75/f2.8 XR Di lens last week. I
LOVE it so far. It is a little soft at 2.8 but still very usable
for prints up to 8x10. I love shooting landscapes and portraits of
my kids and this lens is perfect for what I do. I love having a
constant f2.8 all the way through the zoom range if I need it. I
used to own the Canon 28-135 IS when I shot film and never really
liked it. I think I was unhappy with the image quality I was
getting. Not a lot of contrast. I can't say if I would like it
now with the 10D.

One thing I DID NOT like about the 28-135 was that it went to f5.6
very rapidly as you zoomed out. I like a lot of beautiful
background blur and this lens did not give me anything like I
wanted for portraits. The Tamron
28-75/f2.8 on the other hand gives beautiful results in this regard.

Here is a landscape I took last Saturday with my Tamron. It is
composed of 4 images I stitched together:



This is a black and white I took of my son at f5.6:



Here is a 100% crop of his eyes from the original (unprocessed):

Thanks for the comments

Yes, there is somethign appealing about staying all-canon, despite
the rumors of poor QC.

I'd love to hear from a few Tamon/Sigma/Tokina owners...

-Scott

--

C-2100 UZI (assuming that Olympus ever actually fixes it properly under warantee)

http://www.pbase.com/eridanman

 

[EMS]

Scott,

I love my 50/1.8 for portraits! It gives great background blur and very sharp. Here are some of my recent ones:







Here is one from Lake Powell with the 50mm:

does the 50/1.8 make a decent portrait lense? (the 1.6 crop puts it
near an 80mm eq, which is in the right window)

-Scott

I just purchased the Tamron 28-75/f2.8 XR Di lens last week. I
LOVE it so far. It is a little soft at 2.8 but still very usable
for prints up to 8x10. I love shooting landscapes and portraits of
my kids and this lens is perfect for what I do. I love having a
constant f2.8 all the way through the zoom range if I need it. I
used to own the Canon 28-135 IS when I shot film and never really
liked it. I think I was unhappy with the image quality I was
getting. Not a lot of contrast. I can't say if I would like it
now with the 10D.

One thing I DID NOT like about the 28-135 was that it went to f5.6
very rapidly as you zoomed out. I like a lot of beautiful
background blur and this lens did not give me anything like I
wanted for portraits. The Tamron
28-75/f2.8 on the other hand gives beautiful results in this regard.

Here is a landscape I took last Saturday with my Tamron. It is
composed of 4 images I stitched together:



This is a black and white I took of my son at f5.6:



Here is a 100% crop of his eyes from the original (unprocessed):

Thanks for the comments

Yes, there is somethign appealing about staying all-canon, despite
the rumors of poor QC.

I'd love to hear from a few Tamon/Sigma/Tokina owners...

-Scott

--
C-2100 UZI (assuming that Olympus ever actually fixes it properly
under warantee)

http://www.pbase.com/eridanman

 

[MarkG]

Well, it depends just how big this "niche" is relative to general purpose photography you do. I wanted to have an quality all around zoom mounted on the camera for most of the time so that I would not have to switch to 50 1.8 too often. Say, I go to the park with kids and I have 28-135, want to take this really cool portrait but stuck with F5.6. It would be a real bummer. Most of the photography I do is people, so that made the decision for me.
As far as 50 1.8. In my tests Tamron at F2.8 is as sharp as 50 at F2,

and Tamron a F4 is as sharp as 50 at F2.8. When I really need high quality F2.8 or F2.0 I go for the 50. In fact I had a 50 on the camera for 3 months and loved it. Makes you think more about the shot, super light, bright, sharp, almost no flare. Great lens. After using it, there was no way I'd settle for 28-135, too slow.
MarkG

There's no question to me that the tamron is the better lense for
the specicfic photography I enjoy most.. but Its not the ONLY type
of photography I enjoy.

What I'm wondering though, is will the 50/1.8 provide enough of an
advantage in the realm of low-ambient light work to keep me
entertained, while allowing me the greater reach of the 28-135 for
more "general day-to-day/dusk" photgraphy...

when it comes down to it, the 50 1.8 (and all good primes really)
is a far better choice for the ambient light work I want to do, so
why bother to buy a zoom lense to cover it. Why not buy a decent
all-around zoom lense (the 28-135is) that covers the "rest" of my
photographic needs, and rely on primes for my niche work???

of course, having a good fast zoom would make that niche work
easier and possibly more fun.... not to mention better image
quality overall but is it worth the crimped overall flexibility?

(opinions welcome of course)

I had (still have actually) C2100. The 10x IS zoom is unmatched in
DSLR world, and I still miss it. I had the same dilemma as you -
28-135 vs. Tamron 28-75. The only difference is I have a D30, and
already had a 50mm 1.8 lens with it. I ended up getting a 28-75.
For D30, the speed of the lens is more important that it is for 10D
due to well documented low light AF problems on D30. However, even
if I had a 10D I would still go for 28-75 for several reasons.

• even if you do not use F2.8 the 28-75 is much sharper at F4 and

F5.6 than 28-135, at least this is what I'm getting from various
28-135 published tests. At 5.6 at tele end the 28-135 is wide open
and not at its best. So, you'd have to stop it down more, say to F8.

• for portraits F5.6 is just too slow, and this is what I do most
• sure, IS would be really nice, but bumping up the ISO to 800 or

1600 is within reach on 10D (more so than on D30) I prefer to keep
it at 400 or lower but 800 and 1600 are usable.

• the IS does nothing to freeze moving objects, that is if you are

into sports shooting for example.

So, lets see. IS gives you realistically about 3 stops to combat
the camera shake. The difference is reduced to 2 stops if you
consider that Tamron is 1 stop faster. If you are willing to live
with slightly more noise, and bump up the ISO, you'd get a
difference of 0-1 stops.

The 28-75 is pretty sharp at F4 and up, and very usable at F2.8.
For me it was more important than IS.
MarkG

 

[EMS]

There's no question to me that the tamron is the better lense for
the specicfic photography I enjoy most.. but Its not the ONLY type
of photography I enjoy.

What I'm wondering though, is will the 50/1.8 provide enough of an
advantage in the realm of low-ambient light work to keep me
entertained, while allowing me the greater reach of the 28-135 for
more "general day-to-day/dusk" photgraphy...

when it comes down to it, the 50 1.8 (and all good primes really)
is a far better choice for the ambient light work I want to do, so
why bother to buy a zoom lense to cover it. Why not buy a decent
all-around zoom lense (the 28-135is) that covers the "rest" of my
photographic needs, and rely on primes for my niche work???

of course, having a good fast zoom would make that niche work
easier and possibly more fun.... not to mention better image
quality overall but is it worth the crimped overall flexibility?

(opinions welcome of course)

I had (still have actually) C2100. The 10x IS zoom is unmatched in
DSLR world, and I still miss it. I had the same dilemma as you -
28-135 vs. Tamron 28-75. The only difference is I have a D30, and
already had a 50mm 1.8 lens with it. I ended up getting a 28-75.
For D30, the speed of the lens is more important that it is for 10D
due to well documented low light AF problems on D30. However, even
if I had a 10D I would still go for 28-75 for several reasons.

• even if you do not use F2.8 the 28-75 is much sharper at F4 and

F5.6 than 28-135, at least this is what I'm getting from various
28-135 published tests. At 5.6 at tele end the 28-135 is wide open
and not at its best. So, you'd have to stop it down more, say to F8.

• for portraits F5.6 is just too slow, and this is what I do most
• sure, IS would be really nice, but bumping up the ISO to 800 or

1600 is within reach on 10D (more so than on D30) I prefer to keep
it at 400 or lower but 800 and 1600 are usable.

• the IS does nothing to freeze moving objects, that is if you are

into sports shooting for example.

So, lets see. IS gives you realistically about 3 stops to combat
the camera shake. The difference is reduced to 2 stops if you
consider that Tamron is 1 stop faster. If you are willing to live
with slightly more noise, and bump up the ISO, you'd get a
difference of 0-1 stops.

The 28-75 is pretty sharp at F4 and up, and very usable at F2.8.
For me it was more important than IS.
MarkG

 

[E Scott Cragg]

I just can't help but feel as though the Tamron and the 50 overlap capabilities too much... I have very limited resources, I'd hate to spend my cash on two lenses that have similar abilities (vividly sharp, nice low light and great portraits).... yeah, ones more flexible and the others sharper/lower light, but in the end the both have the same strengths...

 

[E Scott Cragg]

There's no question to me that the tamron is the better lense for
the specicfic photography I enjoy most.. but Its not the ONLY type
of photography I enjoy.

What I'm wondering though, is will the 50/1.8 provide enough of an
advantage in the realm of low-ambient light work to keep me
entertained, while allowing me the greater reach of the 28-135 for
more "general day-to-day/dusk" photgraphy...

when it comes down to it, the 50 1.8 (and all good primes really)
is a far better choice for the ambient light work I want to do, so
why bother to buy a zoom lense to cover it. Why not buy a decent
all-around zoom lense (the 28-135is) that covers the "rest" of my
photographic needs, and rely on primes for my niche work???

of course, having a good fast zoom would make that niche work
easier and possibly more fun.... not to mention better image
quality overall but is it worth the crimped overall flexibility?

(opinions welcome of course)

I had (still have actually) C2100. The 10x IS zoom is unmatched in
DSLR world, and I still miss it. I had the same dilemma as you -
28-135 vs. Tamron 28-75. The only difference is I have a D30, and
already had a 50mm 1.8 lens with it. I ended up getting a 28-75.
For D30, the speed of the lens is more important that it is for 10D
due to well documented low light AF problems on D30. However, even
if I had a 10D I would still go for 28-75 for several reasons.

• even if you do not use F2.8 the 28-75 is much sharper at F4 and

F5.6 than 28-135, at least this is what I'm getting from various
28-135 published tests. At 5.6 at tele end the 28-135 is wide open
and not at its best. So, you'd have to stop it down more, say to F8.

• for portraits F5.6 is just too slow, and this is what I do most
• sure, IS would be really nice, but bumping up the ISO to 800 or

1600 is within reach on 10D (more so than on D30) I prefer to keep
it at 400 or lower but 800 and 1600 are usable.

• the IS does nothing to freeze moving objects, that is if you are

into sports shooting for example.

So, lets see. IS gives you realistically about 3 stops to combat
the camera shake. The difference is reduced to 2 stops if you
consider that Tamron is 1 stop faster. If you are willing to live
with slightly more noise, and bump up the ISO, you'd get a
difference of 0-1 stops.

The 28-75 is pretty sharp at F4 and up, and very usable at F2.8.
For me it was more important than IS.
MarkG

--

C-2100 UZI (assuming that Olympus ever actually fixes it properly under warantee)

http://www.pbase.com/eridanman

 

[MarkG]

Why not get just a 50mm and live with it for a month or two? You'll see which apertures you use most, which ones you like for different shots, and after that you'll feel more comfortable with your decision. The 2100 Uzi feels very different from a DSLR and the look of the photos with 10D with 50mm at F2.0 for example (or even at F4.0) cannot be duplicated with an Uzi.

That's what I did, just got a 50 for three months. Very good practice and education. MarkG

I just can't help but feel as though the Tamron and the 50 overlap
capabilities too much... I have very limited resources, I'd hate to
spend my cash on two lenses that have similar abilities (vividly
sharp, nice low light and great portraits).... yeah, ones more
flexible and the others sharper/lower light, but in the end the
both have the same strengths...

 

[E Scott Cragg]

Well, that's it... my 10D is ordered:-D

From onecall.com,

10D + 50/1.8... with 10% off and free shipping, it comes to a total of 1405.80.

I figure at some point in the near future, I'll buy both the Tamron and the canon lenses, use them for a few days and decide which one is worth keeping/what else I want.

Thank all three of you for your help.

-Scott