[houstonmacgregor]

I have the da 16-45 and da55-300. From your experience do I have any need or use for the Tamron 28-75 Xr Di. Or would that be a case of LBA? I am basically a jump in with both feet amatuer

[ll_coffee_lP]

It depends there Mr. Houston.

The Tammy 28-75 is a very versatile lens that can be used for many uses. I personally haven't used either of the lenses that you have, but do use the Tammy a lot. I like it a lot, but I'm very partial to the focal length that it provides, and often use it at f2.8.

This is a situation where you will need to figure out what you shoot, what focal length you typically use, and whether or not you should get one - based off of your typical shooting habits.

This is an exceptional lens.

c[_]

[Lowell Goudge]

I have the da 16-45 and da55-300. From your experience do I have any need or use for the Tamron 28-75 Xr Di. Or would that be a case of LBA? I am basically a jump in with both feet amatuer

The question would be one of what you intend to do with the lens.

Seriously, the tamron is an excellent lens, and I have had mine for 8 months and am quite pleased with it, BUT I have been shooting for 26 years, and have been doing a lot of indoor sports, and stage productions with natural (i.e. no flash) lighting, and ny 70-200 F2.8 was too long in many instances, I needed an F2.8 zoom over a better focal length range, and the tamron fit my needs.

If you don't need an insanely sharp lens, with better low light focusing due to wider maximum apature, and that wider maximum apature for your shots, the answer is no, if otherwise, yes.

what I would do is perhaps look at something you don't already have, like an ultra wide, either zoom or prime, or a fast 50mm or a true macro lens. Expand the range of capabilities first, until you settle on what you like best, and once settled, then fork out money for superior lenses over the focal length ranges you already have

My view is always to look at expanding your range, unless there is an absolute need to duplicate a range of focal lengths.

[gnaztee]

what I would do is perhaps look at something you don't already have, like an ultra wide, either zoom or prime, or a fast 50mm or a true macro lens. Expand the range of capabilities first, until you settle on what you like best, and once settled, then fork out money for superior lenses over the focal length ranges you already have .

Completely agree with this. I had both the 16-45 and 28-75 at the same time. I only switched to the Tamron when I needed the extra bit of range (which you already have with the 55-300). So I sold the 16-45 for the 12-24. If you're switching to the 28-75 for speed, get real speed (not just one stop) and get the 50/1.4 or 35/2. Or if you don't need speed, trade the 16-45 for the Tamron, get an ultrawide zoom. The Tamron just doesn't give you much advantage over your current lenses.

Todd

[houstonmacgregor]

Really will be doing a bit of this and that. Thought might try to shoot some weddings of people I know. There I thought the 2.8 would be useful.

Of course would not get the tamron unless could get good price for it.

[k100d]

the tamron is reputed to be excellent might not be wide enough for group photos at weddings. might want to try the tamron 17-50mm, which comes out to 28-75mm equivalent after crop factor

[tybeck]

I have the Tamron 28-75 and it's excellent, fast and sharp. The only thing I could see it adding to your current setup would be it's macro mode. You can get pretty close with the lens, closer then then Pentax 16-45 for sure (haven't used the 55-300). Other than that and a wider aperture you don't gain much for general photography.

[Venturi]

From one "both feet" amateur to another here is my LBA experience...

When I first got my K10D in March I had only my decades old and out of date film experience with my K1000 to go on for lens selection. I had to have a long zoom and I had to have a fast-50 and I had to have a wide angle, and in my head the "kit" lens just wasn't good enough despite seeing a myriad of shots posted here and elsewhere that clearly prove otherwise. But at the time I really had no idea what subject matter I was going to end up shooting, and I made some less than wise choices early on.
I've got a much better idea of what I'm doing now and where I'm heading and my lens roadmap is much better defined. Not perfect I'm sure, and will likely change a bit more yet. And my wallet learned the early lessons a lot faster than my brain. So...

Really will be doing a bit of this and that.

People, Places and/or Things? What subject matter do you really enjoy photographing, and what subject matter do you really want to explore more in depth? Answering this question will help determine the focal lengths you want to focus (pardon the pun) on.

Outdoors, Indoors and/or Studio? and Flash or No Flash? Where and how do you like to photograph, or perhaps what scenarios do you generally end up when photographing? This can drive your lens speed (constant aperture vs variable on zooms). If you're shooting a lot indoors or primarily with mediocre available light then faster glass makes that much easier. If you're a daylight shooter or a strobist crazed maniac then the faster apertures don't matter quite as much outside of DOF concerns.

Thought might try to shoot some weddings of people I know. There I thought the 2.8 would be useful

Okay, first off I hope you're talking about for fun, and not as THE Photographer. If not, then you're crazier than me.
I was just shanghaied, kicking and screaming, and baptized by fire into wedding photography this past weekend by a relative as the primary photographer. It was a lot of fun, yes. But it was work. I didn't sit down once for even a 5min break from 4:30pm until 9pm and didn't finish up until nearly 11pm. But hey, if you're into self-torture...
Roughly 80% of the shots I took were with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. I took a few with the FA 50 f/1.4 of the bride preparing and used the DA 18-250 on tripod during the ceremony (I had to remain in the back so needed to reach out and touch them from a distance). I was not allowed to use flash during the ceremony and it just wasn't really practical for the reception (smallish room with lots of people) so flash was only used on the formals.
A couple times I thought to myself that the 28-75 would have been nice to have for that bit of extra reach, but the 17-50 performed as well as its operator's skill level and lighting allowed. I think either lens would make you happy, honestly.

Bottom line, because this is getting long, before you run off to buy new glass take a little time to honestly reflect on what you really want to do with your camera and be the first (new) photographer this century to purposely buy smartly from the start.

[Lowell Goudge]

Venturi has answered exactly why you should go for something that gives you extended capability over what you have now, and why I suggested an ultra wide.

shoot with what you have, add an ultra wide, and then hone your skills and taste before duplicating any range of lenses you have.

You can spend a LOT, and never recover it selling things used, if you don't map out your lens needs carefully.

In all reality, you need to consider covering the range from 10mm to 200mm (or up to 400mm if you want wild life also) Plus macro.

Look at what you have, what should be next, and move forward from there.

Another thing, go for quality when you extend beyond your present range, that way youo will only buy once

[rfortson]

(snip)
that way you will only buy once

Bah! Where's the fun in that?



Oh, and I agree with the comments about shooting weddings. I can't imagine anything much more stressful. I sincerely hope you're just planning to do this for fun and not as a primary photographer. If not, you're setting yourself up for some serious pain, lost friendships, and possibly lawsuits (if you're taking money but not delivering what they expect).

[Nesster]

Don't listen to them. You need this lens, but only if: you constantly wish you had the OTHER lens mounted all the time - when with the tele, you needed the wider angle, and when with the 16-45 you always wished to have the extra reach. If this is your experience, the extra lens may make sense. But then, consider: which of the other two would you hardly use? Will you miss the extra wideness of 16mm or the extra reach of 200? You see, soon enough you'll be considering those 18-250 lenses, using this logic.

Well, that would be my reason to get the Tamron, and then I'd seriously think of selling the 16-45. And then I'd miss the wide angle and get on yet another expensive LBA thing. I do feel that I'd love a bit longer reach with my 16-45, but I'll live with it.

[Marc Sabatella]

at the time I really had no idea what subject matter I was going to end up shooting, and I made some less than wise choices early on.
I've got a much better idea of what I'm doing now and where I'm heading and my lens roadmap is much better defined. Not perfect I'm sure, and will likely change a bit more yet. And my wallet learned the early lessons a lot faster than my brain.

I could tell the same story, if a bit different in specifics. Basically, it's next to impossible to know what you're going to need until you need it, and than it starts to become obvious. If it isn't obvious why you need the lens, you probably *don't* need it.

Frankly, weddings *are* a situation where it's value might become obvious, but as an amateur also myself, I'd never consider doing wedding on any serious basis. When I've shot at weddings of friends, I basically stick on my telephoto during the ceremony to take closeups of the participants from afar, then switch to something wider and faster at the reception for candids and so forth, and that's about it.

For telephoto I use the DA 50-200, which isn't particularly fast, but wedding ceremonies are usually pretty well lit, the subjects are stationary, and between SR and bracing my arms against my body while seated I can get the shots I need. If I expect to be especially dim I might use my M135/3.5 instead. For the reception, the DA40 is so perfect - the right focal length for me, just fast enough, and so unobtrusive - it's hard for me to imagine wanting anything else. Sure, if I were doing this professionally I'd "need" more of a range of shots - wider angles, some teles from across the room, whatever. And the 28-75 just might fit the bill. But *I* don't need any such thing. I need to have fun and take home some images to remind me how much fun I had, and the simplicity of the DA40 ensures that.

So anyhow, I agree with the basic sentiment here - the only things one can clearly see that you will probably need are extreme wide angle if you're into that, a macro if you're into that, or a fast lens for low light or DOF control. But no need to spring for any until you know.

[heatherslightbox]

Before buying any more lenses, it would be a good idea for you to download a copy of ExposurePlot (ExposurePlot (former Focalplot)), so you can run some of the images that you've already taken through it to see what focal lengths you use the most. That was what convinced me that the Tamron 28-75 would be the best walk-around solution for me in most situations.

Secondly, ask yourself a couple of questions:
1. When I use the 16-45, do I often find myself wishing that it was a bit longer?
2. When I use the 16-45, do I often find myself wishing that it was bit wider?

How you answer the questions will determine in which direction you need to go. If you answer yes to #1, then you need to look at something that's longer on the tele-end. If you answer yes to #2, then something wider is in order, like the DA12-24, Sigma 10-20 or Sigma 12-24; if you answered no to this question, but yes to #1, it could open up a couple of options like these:
--Tamron 28-75: good if you don't find yourself using the wide end of the 16-45 very often.
--Sigma or Pentax 17-70: good if you do use the wide end of the 16-45 fairly often, but want more length on the tele end.

HTH,
Heather

[k100d]

thanks for pointing out Exposure Plot Heather. i used to use the viewing program that incorporated the Exposure Plot but this really helps

where's the OP ? :S

[sabarrett]

Ditto that... Exposureplot is a lifesaver. That is how I initially settled on my Sigma 17-70 as my main lens. I looked thru the previous 4 years of photos and looked at the shots that worked and the ones that didn't because either the camera didn't go wide enough or long enough. I was also able to look at where the bulk of my shots were taken aperture wise. Then, based on what I like to shoot, where I shoot I came to the 17-70. I wish it were a 2.8 constant, but hey, that is life.

If you have a library of images, go thru them and think of what you like to shoot and why. Find the lens that can maximize your ability.