[jake14mw]

Hi all,
I recently dropped my Tamron 28-75 2.8 lens. This is my walkaround lens. It is on my camera by default unless I have another need. I use it for general photography, and I also use it some for portraits, and also for HS basketball as well. I may look into repair, although I thought it might be a good time to think if there were other options available to me that may be better. Here are my priorities for this lens:
1) IQ, especially sharpness
2) Has to be f 2.8
3) AF speed

The alternatives that come to mind to me are the Pentax 16-50 2.8, and the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4. Any wider zoom range would be nice, but I will take a smaller range if it means better IQ. I noticed in the PF review of the Sigma that they said that sharpness was not it’s strong point, so that is a negative for me. Does anyone know at what focal length the Sigma goes from 2.8 to 4?

Any suggestions that anyone has would be appreciated. Thanks.

[psychdoc]

If you are thinking of getting the Pentax 16-50, the Tamron 17-50 is much sharper and no fear of SDM issues. I have both the 17-50 and the 28-75 and the 17-50 is much sharper. Also I got both these lenses together for the less price as the Pentax one Thanksgiving year.
No experience with the Sigma.

[jake14mw]

Thanks very much, I will look into the Tamron 17-50!

[ChristianRock]

But won't the 17-50 be too short for your basketball games? If the 28-75 worked well, why not just get another one? There's no other zoom that goes to 75mm 2.8 at that price point.

[jake14mw]

But won't the 17-50 be too short for your basketball games? If the 28-75 worked well, why not just get another one? There's no other zoom that goes to 75mm 2.8 at that price point.

Yes, that would be a negative. Most of the shots with the 28-75 for basketball are at 75mm. I also have a 70-200 that I use for basketball, so I would probably use that more. On the other hand, the additional wide angle range would allow for certain shots that I can't get now. Currently, for anything wide angle, I only have the 18-55 kit lens, and that is slow and not the greatest IQ. So, it would just change the way that I shoot basketball, but basketball is only one part of the equation, this lens will be my main lens.

[yusuf]

I have used both Tamron 28-75 & Tamron 17-50, while 28-75 is more sharper, both are excellent choice. If you need wider end, buy 17-50 or else why not just buy another copy of 28-75mm.

These both with Tamron 17-50mm

[jeverettfine]

Another great lens for basketball would be the DA 50-135 unless you were right under the basket when you might want something that goes wider. I have looked at that lens for a while now. Another lens you might consider is the DA 16-85.
I also have a Tamron 28-75 and enjoy it very much, great lens for the money. It pairs perfectly with my FA 20-35. Those two lenses can do most things for me. I do admit I am tempted by the DA 20-40 as a replacement for the 20-35.
Of course, I am also a fan of good primes, I own these: DA 15, SMC-A 28 2.0, SMC-A 50 1.4, SMC-A 50 2.8 Macro, DA 70, SMC-A 100 2.8

[normhead]

Yes, that would be a negative. Most of the shots with the 28-75 for basketball are at 75mm. I also have a 70-200 that I use for basketball, so I would probably use that more. On the other hand, the additional wide angle range would allow for certain shots that I can't get now. Currently, for anything wide angle, I only have the 18-55 kit lens, and that is slow and not the greatest IQ. So, it would just change the way that I shoot basketball, but basketball is only one part of the equation, this lens will be my main lens.

How about the narrow end. Do you shoot much below 50mm? Maybe a DA*50-135 is what you want.
My guess is that plus the kit lens could be your solution.

[Lowell Goudge]

Although it might be more pricy, have you looked at the 16-85? Sure it is not as fast as the 28-75, which I also have but it is a much more useful focal length range for a walk around lens. I am putting a kit together for my daughter and decided on a K50 plus 16-85 for a few reasons, usefulness on a single lens was one big issue for travel, WR was a second. I have not put the 15-85 through all its paces yet, but I believe it may be a good option unless F2.8 is a big issue for you

[IchabodCrane]

Now that the SR problem is fixed, you might consider the Sigma 17-70 C. You lose one stop at the long end vs the Tamrom but get it back at the wide end.

[normhead]

Now that the SR problem is fixed, you might consider the Sigma 17-70 C. You lose one stop at the long end vs the Tamrom but get it back at the wide end.

I would never again recommend an ƒ4 lens to a person looking for ƒ2.8. My existence right now with 17 lenses in the cupboard is totally directed to rectifying my lack of 2.8 or faster glass.

[IchabodCrane]

I would never again recommend an ƒ4 lens to a person looking for 2.8. My existence right now with 17 lenses in the cupboard is totally directed to rectifying my lack of 2.8 or faster glass.

I fully agree that if you have 17 lenses already then you probably aren't looking for an F/2.8-4 lens.

[jake14mw]

Another great lens for basketball would be the DA 50-135 unless you were right under the basket when you might want something that goes wider. I have looked at that lens for a while now. Another lens you might consider is the DA 16-85.
I also have a Tamron 28-75 and enjoy it very much, great lens for the money. It pairs perfectly with my FA 20-35. Those two lenses can do most things for me. I do admit I am tempted by the DA 20-40 as a replacement for the 20-35.
Of course, I am also a fan of good primes, I own these: DA 15, SMC-A 28 2.0, SMC-A 50 1.4, SMC-A 50 2.8 Macro, DA 70, SMC-A 100 2.8

Yeah, actually, if I did not already have the 70-200 for basketball, I would look for a Sigma 50-150. Perfect focal length range to cover basketball. The Pentax 50-135 is a good length too but the AF is just too slow for sports. That DA 16-85 is of course a great focal range, I can't imagine a better range for a walkaround lens, but it is too slow for me.

---------- Post added 01-30-15 at 01:49 PM ----------

Although it might be more pricy, have you looked at the 16-85? Sure it is not as fast as the 28-75, which I also have but it is a much more useful focal length range for a walk around lens. I am putting a kit together for my daughter and decided on a K50 plus 16-85 for a few reasons, usefulness on a single lens was one big issue for travel, WR was a second. I have not put the 15-85 through all its paces yet, but I believe it may be a good option unless F2.8 is a big issue for you

Yes, I agree, that range is perfect for a walkaround, but f 2.8 is huge deal for me.

---------- Post added 01-30-15 at 01:50 PM ----------

Now that the SR problem is fixed, you might consider the Sigma 17-70 C. You lose one stop at the long end vs the Tamrom but get it back at the wide end.

I did some research on that lens, and it is only 2.8 at the 20mm or under I believe. It goes to f4 too quickly, and reviews I have read say sharpness is not it's strength.

[sterretje]

The alternatives that come to mind to me are the Pentax 16-50 2.8, and the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4

Sigma 17-50/2.8 if you don't mind the shorter focal length. Review: DA* 16-50mm vs. Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 Comparison - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

But it actually sounds like you need that 75mm, so get another 28-75.

[jake14mw]

Well, I called Tamron, and the estimated $150 - 200 for a repair, so I sent it in to them. The full frame announcement helped too.