#1,492 in Electronics
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product
Reddit mentions of Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon Digital SLR Cameras (Model A09E)
Sentiment score: 14
Reddit mentions: 20
We found 20 Reddit mentions of Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon Digital SLR Cameras (Model A09E). Here are the top ones.
Buying optionsView on Amazon.com
- 28-75mm autofocus zoom lens with f/2.8 maximum aperture
- Focal Length : 28-75 mm, Minimum focusing distance of 13 inches, rotation-type zoom
- Designed to meet performance characteristics of digital SLR cameras
- Smaller and lighter than most fast zoom lenses; weighs 18 ounces
- Measures 2.9 inches in diameter and 3.6 inches long; 6-year warranty
If you wan't to take photos without a flash, especially of action, you're going to want a larger aperture (smaller F number). Defiantly not a pro myself, but the Canon 50 mm f/1.8 is a fantastic lens for $100. The large aperture will allow you to capture more light allowing you to use a faster shutter speed (and freeze motion, reducing blur). For about the same price as the lens you have selected, you can get a 2.8 zoom, the [Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8] (http://www.amazon.ca/Tamron-28-75mm-Canon-Aspherical-Digital/dp/B0000A1G05/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1395673544&amp;sr=8-2&amp;keywords=tamron+28-75mm+f28). That will give you some room to zoom, but will not be able to go as wide as the 18-55 kit lens I assume you use currently. Hope that helps!
Alright, on my desktop now so I can fix this up a bit.
Tamaron 28-75 2.8 is an increddibly good lens. It has a good zoom range, constant aperture, is parfocal, and very sharp. The only downsides are that the front of the barrel extends quite a bit when zooming (makes it difficult to use with a mattebox, and the focus throw is like 10 degrees or something. It also has auto focus, if you want to use it for stills, or you like watching the lens refocus in the middle of your video. If it's in your price range, I strongly suggest this lens.
This olympus 50mm 1.8 is a great lens. It's sharper than the cannon 50mm, and has much better manual focusing. I own the 1.4 version, and it's likely the sharpest lens I've ever owned. The cannon 1.8 does have autofocus, and flares alot less, but it also costs over 2x the amount.
This Tokina 35-105 3.5-5.6 is an amazing lens, considering the price. It's not very sharp until f5.6, but it still looks amazing. The bokeh is amazingly creamy, especially when using the close focusing function, and it can start to go swirly. By 5.6 it is also incredibly sharp. This lens can definitely give a very "cinematic" look. The best thing about it is it can be found online for as little as 13 dollars. Beware however, it is a push zoom style lens, and it is not parfocal.
Nikon 3.5-70 3.5 is an incredible deal. I haven't owned one myself, but here is an incredibly detailed review by Ken Rockwell.
If you want wide or tele primes, especially fast ones, its gonna cost you quite a bit more. Even vintage ones rarely sell for under $100.
Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 can be purchased with Amazon Prime (30 day free returns) for $280:
It'll get you 35, 50, and close to 85. Can stay at 2.8 all the way through. Some slight vignetting (once in a while) on the full-frame 6D, but that can be removed digitally.
I'd definitely recommend this to anyone and save over $1k compared to Canon's 24-70. I only buy refurbs sold with Amazon Prime, as sometimes you get a dud and you need to return it, but returning the lenses have never been a problem.
If he goes for the [$374 Metabones] (http://www.adorama.com/MBEFEM.html?KBID=66297), that only leaves him with $626 to cover 24mm to 70mm at f2.8 or faster. That won't really work for native Canon glass - but I guess he could get something like a [Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 for $419] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000A1G05/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=B0000A1G05&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=battleforthew-20) and have a few dollars left over.
That said - autofocus with Canon compatible lenses is a little slower using this adapter.
Also if you're looking for a versatile/fast/sorta cheap lens, look into the Tamron 28-75 2.8. I used this lens for a good year and a half in many situations before I started building a prime kit.
Tbh at that vintage I'd go with a 40D. Prices are actually cheaper, and it's a better camera imo. 1 year older and slightly less MP, but a prosumer body with superior controls, ergonomics, and build quality.
I have one, and love it still.
It's my backup, but once in a while I still take it out - like when I went out on the water a couple of months ago. I recently made a comment about it here with some sample shots, etc (though obviously, there are faaaaar better samples online).
If you dig photography, you can always upgrade the body and at current prices you're not really risking anything. The price is pretty much at the bottom already. Your lenses will still be current.
Also recommend the 24mm 2.8 pancake, don't know much about the zooms listed, but love my Tamron as an all-around (buy used, it's almost always a much better deal - except maybe the pacake because it's so cheap already). The 1.8 50mm is a classic for a reason, but can be a bit tight on a crop body. Great for portraits though.
I was in a similar position about 3 years ago. But then it was either the D3100 or the D5100. I chose the D5100. I chose it due to the higher ISO capability. I loved my decision. It was a much better camera than the 3100. I tried my buddy's 3100 and my 5100 side by side and mine outperformed 3100 significantly. The location was a dinner party at a restaurant. I was able to easily pull of images in low light he was not able to get. Also, the additional features helped me learn photography better. To me the 3100 seems like an advanced point and shoot camera with SLR capability. The 5100 gave me very good pictures, kept me interested, and kept me growing in photography for the last 3 years where the 3100 would have bored and disappointed me with photography in couple of months. Honestly, today, I am disappointed I just didn't go for a D7000. If I would have gotten the D7000, I believe I would have been satisfied for another year or two before upgrading. But it was my first DSLR and I wanted to learn how to shoot manual. I wanted to tip my toes in the water first before spending lots of $$$.
Yesterday, I just upgraded my 5100 to a D750. I was between the D7100, D610 and the D750. I figured why the heck not... I wanted something that can keep me satisfied for the next 5 years. Rather than constantly have my body go out of date then wanting to upgrade again.
To see what kind of pictures the D5100 can take, look here. http://imgur.com/a/kZxC2. http://imgur.com/a/1eOv5#9.
I am sure the D5300 will perform much better.
I highly recommend getting the Tamron 2.8 28-75 lens and skipping the kit lense. The Tamron 2.8 was my first lens purchase. All pictures you see above was taken with it. It will be the lense you may need for a while, unless you need a super zoom.
You can get it new for $500 http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-28-75mm-Aspherical-Canon-Digital/dp/B0000A1G05
or used < $400. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/used/284402?gclid=CjwKEAiAtNujBRDMmoCN46aB8noSJAC7SYv7mf2IsbdzMWfDQ6PQ7TP8v3RtWwojn7S83gSJnLjSkhoCGhfw_wcB
It is an FX lens and you can still use if if you decide to make the jump to FX later like I did. Even if you buy DX now, I suggest you still by FX lenses. I have only purchased 2 lenses over the last 3 years, but they have been very good lenses. They will serve me much longer than the bodies. If you do not want to spent that much on new lenses right now and want to get the kit lense (which I highly don't recommend), wait few months and get the 50mm prime lense. http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-NIKKOR-Digital-Cameras/dp/B004Y1AYAC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1417144124&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=nikon+50+mm. Its an excellent lense and you can use it on FX camera's as well. I am planning on this to be my next purchase after I get over the D750 sticker shock.
Edit: I also jumped from a Canon Powershot to Nikon DSLR. I have really enjoyed Nikon as they just felt better in my hands. Also D7000+ bodies has a built in motor so you can buy older lenses much cheaper.
Edit 2: Best Buy has a great deal going on now for a D7000 and a zoom lens for $800 bucks. http://www.bestbuy.com/site/nikon-d7000-dslr-camera-with-18-140mm-vr-lens-black/2071002.p?id=1219068635598&amp;skuId=2071002.
Edit 3: Scratch that. You may want to take a look at this... http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00POQ8B74/ref=twister_B005MX9OSE?_encoding=UTF8&amp;psc=1
I see a lot of talk about getting a 17-55mm f/2.8 but you might want to also consider the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. I value the slight telephoto a little bit more than I do the 18mm wide end, so it ended up being my most recent purchase and I love it.
I also own the 50mm f/1.8 (albeit Nikon) and it remains my favorite lens ever, but that's because I do mostly portraiture sessions.
damn. he gave a dude a list of helpful links while he was on mobile since the dude clearly didn't do his own research, and all people can say//do is put him down for bad formatting. Pretty fucked up if you ask me.
/u/kirrkirr's list formatted:
"Beggars can't be choosers girl this ain't Chipotle"
I'm in the same boat with the 1100D, but I know that the body, while it does have it's limitations, is still an excellent camera. I've yet to reach it's full potential, but I know that with current kit lens and a 55-250mm lens, I could do better. I've been looking to get this lens.
28-75 2.8 - https://www.amazon.com/Tamron-28-75mm-Aspherical-Canon-Digital/dp/B0000A1G05
Or probably even better for you https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-17-50mm-Aperture-Standard-Digital/dp/B003A6H27K
For versatility, I recommend the Tamron 24-75mm f/2.8
It's fixed aperture, decently fast, and its focal range goes from wide to juuust about close-up. It's not going to be as sharp as a prime, but if you can afford to shoot stopped down to a f/4 it can do good things.
I have had a T1i for about a year now. some thoughts.
If you're looking at telephoto lenses be sure to get one with IS (image stabilization). If you are zoomed all the way in on something, any movement in the camera will be that much more noticeable without some sort of stabilization. I think most of the two lens kits include the 18-55mm IS and the 70-250mm IS. Both are ok.
The only substantial difference between the T1i and the T2i is that the T2i can record 1080p video at up to 60fps. The T1i can only do 720p at 24fps. The T2i also has a jack for an external microphone, which is really only handy if you plan to hook up a shotgun mic or a lavaliere mic for interviews, etc.
The main thing I'd suggest is to think about how you plan to use it as well as your budget. You can get a Canon Xsi (no video) that takes great pics for much less than a T1i or T2i. Spend that extra cash on a good lens (http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/B0000A1G05) for sharper pics. If you really want video, spring for the T2i.
Another important thing to keep in mind about the video... neither of these can autofocus while recording. You can manual focus, of course, but that's not always easy and the camera will shake while you do it. The Nikon D3100 is pretty new and it can do video while autofocusing... the first to handle that, I think.
Nikon and Canon are pretty comparable on all their features. Some people are die-hard in one direction, but for the novice (like me) it's really impossible to tell the difference in the pics. The only thing about choosing a brand is that you're committing to buy those lenses in the future, so it's like getting married to your camera maker.
All that said, if creative picture-taking isn't high on the agenda, just get a good point and shoot. They're more portable, obviously.
Is this the lens that you're talking about?
Adorama, where I think I bought mine.
I purchased from Adorama. I had used the lens many times before buying it because my school had a bunch of them for us to use. When I got mine, I knew right away something was wrong with it because the focus ring was way too stiff/had too much friction when manual focusing. This seemed to mess with the AF and it would mis-focus (although not always). I called Adorama and they exchanged it free of charge. Second one was much smoother and it has served me well. It's my default lens for most shoots, unless I wanna get super close up to an actor, or I need to get really wide (and even then I usually end up just getting farther from the subject).
Tamron 28-75mm 2.8
Good range and fast enough to get away with indoor work.
I just shot in the delivery room fine with a ETTL2 flash and a 50mm 1.8f@4 on 1100d, but I would scope out the room ahead of time to see where you might be standing to determine how wide of a shot you will need. Maybe if you need to be more flexible and are on a budget think about the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 otherwise pop for an L lens.
The Tamron 28-75 seems to be very good value for your money compared to the other brands, it's only $449 at Amazon. I don't know if it's a big difference though.
A single lens for a novice, I would recommend a zoom lens rather than a fixed.
If you have the money to pick of a collection of prime lenses that might be a different option if you want to go that way. You might want to pick up a set with the 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 100mm... yeah, it adds up.
The kit lens for the rebel series is the one mentioned earlier (EF-S 18-55) and older editions can be found for cheap. Looking over ebay I see them for $11.50, $8.50, $13.00, $10.61, ... The range of 18-55 is not terrific and many people ditch their kit lenses as soon as possible, but many others never move on from their initial kit lens. They are not that bad, and the market is flooded with them, so they can be had for cheap.
If you're willing to go off-brand and on a tight budget for a better zoom, better both in terms of better glass and more versatile midrange zoom, this Tameron lens is one of the best ranked among the 'cheap' category. 28-75 f/2.8 for $315 used like new. It is missing a lot of expensive features, no image stabilization, slow noisy motors, but the glass is good for a midrange zoom lens.
If you do have a little bit of money for a lens, my absolute favorite "inexpensive" canon lens for regular walkabout use is their 24-105 f/4 L-series lens for about $650 used. Excellent glass (it is an L-series) good mid range zoom, fast quiet motors, image stabalization, full-time manual focus. True it isn't the very similar f/2.8 flagship that sells for 4x the cost, which I would recommend if you had the money. It is a mighty fine mid-range lens.
What I would have said as well. If you want a little extra reach could go Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 . It's technically for full frame (which some people have issue w/ on a crop body) but I used it exclusively on my apsc for years. I do more portraits so preferred the long end over the short end.