Considering the Tamron 28-70mm, but...

Kornbread · 09-28-2009, 10:02 AM

I'm considering the Tamron 28-70mm lens mainly, but I wanted to know if there are any other options that I have not yet considered.

I'm going to use this lens mainly for portrait photography. I like the zoom range, and the constant f2.8.

Are there any other lenses with a similar zoom range, and a similar aperture that would be worth considering?

*kristoffon* · 09-28-2009, 10:11 AM

Look for a wider lens such as Tamron's own:

PentaxForums.com Third-Party Pentax Lens Review Database - SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR LD ASPHERICAL (IF)

Not to mention similars from sigma, pentax, etc

*MacGirl* · 09-28-2009, 11:38 AM

I love my Tammy 28-75, it's usually on my camera 90% of the time. Plus, if you are doing portrait photography I wouldn't recommend getting anything wider than 50mm since you risk distorting your subject's face. The 28-75 is pretty versatile though, which is why I love it. I always feel like my 16-45 is a little short when I'm trying to capture a close-up of my little one's expression at times and the extra reach from 50-75 helps. For the money you can't beat it though.

If you have the funds I'd look at the Pentax 50-135 too. I've seen some great portrait shots from that one also and with equestrian photography I'm starting to need a little bit extra reach that is faster than my 70-300.

Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 example:

Kornbread · 09-28-2009, 12:59 PM

I actually just ordered the 50-135, and I'm pretty excited. I'm considering the Tamron 28-75 because I was on a shoot last week with my FA 50 1.4, and there were many times I thought to my self "If I could just zoom in/out just a bit, it would be nice." Plus, it is a bit smaller that the 50-135. I just think it is a lens that I would have on my camera A LOT.

*Andi Lo* · 09-28-2009, 05:07 PM

If not for FA 35 the 28-75 would be on my K100D ALL the time

*geauxpez* · 09-28-2009, 06:49 PM

Yep -- the 28-75 is truly brilliant. It's my mainstay.

*Ash* · 09-28-2009, 07:53 PM

An excellent choice - particularly if you're not going to have the 50-135 with you all the time.

If you do think of bringing the 50-135 with you when you're out with your camera, then consider if you'll ever want to go wider than 28mm. This would make the Tamron 17-50, Sigma 18-50/2.8 or the Pentax 16-50 better choices (depending on how much you want to spend).

Sigma and Pentax also have a 17-70 lens, the Sigma does not have a constant maximum aperture across its focal range, but the Pentax version is a constant f/4.

There's also Pentax's 16-45, which is an excellent lens at quite a cheap price, but of course no SDM or weather sealing.

Another option is the only slightly wider Sigma 24-70/2.8, but you lose an extra 5mm at the long end compared with the 28-75...

Decisions, decisions...

Lowell Goudge · 09-28-2009, 07:58 PM

I have used the lens now for just over 2 years.

overall it is an excellent lens, but I have noticed occasionally it can be a little soft, wide open.

If you are considering this lens, you should also consider sigma 24-60 and 24-70 lenses although both are bigger and heavier.

The 28mm leaves it a little on the long side, especially when paired with a sigma 10-20. you notice the 8,mm gap, (i fill that with my SMC FA-J 18-35)

if you are only shooting digital, you might also want to look at something like a 17-70. I shoot both film and digital (except with the sigma 10-20) and full frame was a coinsideration for me.

*Andi Lo* · 09-28-2009, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by Ash

Another option is the only slightly wider Sigma 24-70/2.8, but you lose an extra 5mm at the long end compared with the 28-75...

Decisions, decisions...

70 can be cropped to 75. 28 cannot be cropped to 24...

28 is wide enough for me 70% of the time though, so I'm not complaining

And I got a great copy luckily n first try.

*geauxpez* · 09-28-2009, 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by Andi Lo

70 can be cropped to 75. 28 cannot be cropped to 24...

28 is wide enough for me 70% of the time though, so I'm not complaining And I got a great copy luckily n first try.

True enough -- I like to have a wider option for a walkaround lens, but for portraits, 28-75 on a digital is pretty ideal. I seem to usually need just a hair longer than 50mm to get a comfortable distance from my subject and sometimes come in to the 35-40mm range. Strictly speaking for portrait use, having the 28-75 instead of a 17-50 and a 50-135 would mean probably not having to change lenses during a session.

*Ash* · 09-28-2009, 08:21 PM

Depends on the type of portraiture.
Single or couple portraits would be easily managed with the 50-135, and I couldn't think of a better lens to do the job.
Any larger groups would need a wide-normal zoom... so the 28-75 might do reasonably well there, but I've had instances where in tight spots even 18mm is not wide enough for a group shot!