[Indi]

Hi all,

still researching the best 1st lense to go with a new 400d, and have come up with these 2.
Want to do kids, portraits, and some landscapes occasionally when I can. Thinking of also getting the new canon 55-250 IS 4-5.6 to go with it.
It seems that both the tamrons have qreat sharpness with the 17-50 edging it. Is the 17-50 going to be too short for portraits, or the 28-75 too long for landscapes (bearing in mind the 1.6 crop on the 400d)? Will I be able to do portraits with the 55-250?

Decisions, decisions...

[Sonsey]

I've the (sharp as a tac) Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and rate it highly. You've already hit the nail on the head when describing your use for both lenses, I think the 28-75 might be the slightly better option for portraits with the 17-50 more suitable for landscape use as I know I've sometimes wished I had wider than 28mm when I was trying to shoot landscapes with mine. The 17-50 should also give you good portrait results, you'll just have to get a bit closer to the subject.

I guess it comes down to what you intend to shoot more, the 55-250 IS will of course take portraits but I think it's f/4-5.6 could limit you in certain circumstances.

[ChrisRabior]

I'll tell you right now that I wish my 28-75 went wider. Of course, I've got a 70-200mm f/4L and a few others to complement the range, so my needs are different than yours. I love the wide capabilities of the kit lens, and would LOVE the wider and faster capabilities of a 17-50mm f/2.8. If you're not so much looking for wide, then the 28-75 is probably more up your alley.

[Indi]

Thanks guys,

as Tamron 28-75 owners, have you found any focussing issues in low light? I may want to take indoor pics of not very still kids and wonder if this may prove an issue.

[Dave]

Would you not prefer 17mm indoors though, as you are more restricted by space & may find the wider angle a god send

[Indi]

Oh yeah, good point, I think that may have clinched it.
Thanks all.