Recommended walkaround lens for 50D?

[hciere]

I've currently got an 18-200 Sigma lens, but have begun to notice the compromise in image quality, especially since I purchased my Canon 50mm f/1.4. I am looking for something with the speed and quality of my 50 with more zoom flexibility.

The Canon options are too pricey for me, but I was looking at the Tamron lenses. I am torn between the 28-75 or the 17-50. From what I've read the quality is good and rivals the Canon counterparts, but I am open to all advice, experience and recommendations.

Thank you in advance!
Heather

PS - I should mention that I envision using this lens for street photography and family events that may be lower light settings. Ideally it could be used for landscape too. (Am I asking too much?)

[jml79]

That is a really hard choice. I have a 28-105 medium speed lens that I love as an all around lens. I find that inside I feel a little cramped at 42mm equivalent and your camera has a touch more crop factor than mine. I also feel cramped when taking any pictures of buildings.

On the flip side, 70mm is not enough to remove yourself from your subject let alone 50mm when you're on the street.

PersonallIy I would likely buy the 17-50mm and a 75-300mm slow lens for the folowing reasons, I find that when I am looking for the fast lens is when I am inside. I also find that I often use my 28-105 like a prime at either 28mm f/3.5 or 50mm f/4. If I need to zoom to 105, I usually need to change to my long lens. Inside I often have to compromise and use my slower 18-70mm lens.

I find that most of the time I am using my long lens is in daylight. I also find that portability is an issue for me. A fast 70-200 is huge, both in size and price. My 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 is less than a stop slower wide and a stop and a third slower long but it is half the size and a quarter the price of a 70-200 f/2.8

Just my thoughts.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by hciere

...I am torn between the 28-75 or the 17-50. From what I've read the quality is good and rivals the Canon counterparts, but I am open to all advice, experience and recommendations....
PS - I should mention that I envision using this lens for street photography and family events that may be lower light settings. Ideally it could be used for landscape too. (Am I asking too much?)

Maybe a little. To me, f/2.8 is still a borderline aperture for available light shooting, and I prefer fast primes, but I'm a known eccentic. I think if you want the lens for landscape and available light and street shooting, the 17-50/2.8 is the better fit of the two on a crop body, simply because it actually covers wide angle to short telephoto lengths. The 28-75 wouldn't give you much wide angle. I'd probably trade the 18-200 for an EF-S 55-250 IS ($250) if you feel the need to cover telephoto as well, not the 75-300 III which is a much older design and not as good an optical performer.

[hciere]

Thank you both! I am going to try out some lenses tonight. @jml79 - thanks for making me realize that I want the speed in low light (so true for me) so I really don't need telephoto ability for what I'm after.