Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD or Canon L lens?

[tmorterlaing]

Hi all! OK, so I know the answer would appear obvious at FIRST, but allow me to elaborate. I want a good walkabout lens, and so obviously started looking at the max of my budget at the L lenses. I was thinking either one of the old 28-70mm f2.8 Ls, or a 24-105mm f4L IS.
Now I understand the perks of an L lens, in that theyre supposed to be super sharp, the god of all lenses etc. However, after reading a few reviews, it seems that the Tamron lens mentioned above (28-75) believe it or not, has similar sharpness, almost indistinguishable from those L lenses. Its chromatic aberration is a little worse, but again, its minimal. Before you start talking about durability, weather sealing and build quality, I know the Tamron isn't top notch, but its certainly supposed to be a step up from the kit lens! Also can we try and not worry too much about the extra 30mm the f4L offers- for a walkabout lens, thats a bonus sure, but not a deal breaker for me. So I guess my question is two fold- firstly is it worth spending double the money for one of the L lenses? And secondly (looking purely at the 24-105L), is it worth trading off the f2.8 for an f4 L lens? I like the idea of f2.8 but if the f4 L (which is cheaper than the other one) is mega sharp and THAT much clearer etc than the Tamron, then it may be a good midway (in price) between the Tamron and the more expensive 28-75 2.8L.

Cool, sorry about the slightly complex question, just hoping for some personal experience or something here :)
Thanks in advance for any help/ tips :D

[Tim Gomez]

I'd ALWAYS say go for speed rather than range...the 2.8 will get you through more situations where the 4 would fail you...An L lens you can crop pics down to 1:1 and be FINE, so the range doesn't matter as much.
As for the canon vs the Tamron...I'd have a hard time deciding that one too...I have a Canon L (70-200mm f4 IS), and I JUST purchased a Tamron 180mm Macro lens (haven't received it yet), because, just as you said, this particular lens is supposed to perform almost as good as an L lens for half the cost. I will see if that is true or not shortly...I KNOW the Canon Ls ARE what they are cracked up to be. I am hoping that the people that say good things about some of the Tamron lenses aren't full of hot air. Seeing as I am an amateur hobbyist I can sacrifice a bit of quality for the cost though.

[Steve Paxton]

You are shooting with a Canon 7D - that is a very high quality camera. I have a 7D and a 5D Mark II and I am always reaching for my 7D. I just love that camera. I think it's all of the extra control you get with the 7D that you don't get with the 5D Mark II - I specifically like the extra focus dots and the ability to bracket beyond two stops. Yea, yea, the 5D is a full frame camera - I know! It's an awesome camera too. I shoot with them both, but I love, love the 7D - much more than I expected I would.

I bring this up because I think you should pair your awesome camera up with an equally awesome Canon lens (yep, I said "awesome" - what can I say, I grew up in the 80s!). The lens you buy will outlive your 7D and be with you for several generations of cameras. If cost is a serious consideration, I would get the f4 lens over the f2.8. From what you are describing, I don't think you will necessarily miss the extra stop. If you were shooting portraits or low light events, I would say to save your money for the f2.8. The 24-105mm f4L IS should work very well for an all around walkabout lens.

Hint - Hint: Get the one with the red ring around it!

:Camera-Canon-L-17-4 :Camera-Canon-L-17-4 :Camera-Canon-L-17-4 :Camera-Canon-L-17-4 :Camera-Canon-L-17-4

[tmorterlaing]

Cheers guys, some good tips and points! The only thing I'd now say is there are slightly conflicting points :s One of you say speed and one say "L L L!!!" haha! So maybe I need one more response to help me make the final decision/ help me destroy my wallet...

[Michael]

I think the answer to this really depends on how you use your gear. I don't think there is a 'this lens is better' answer. When I'm considering a new lens or body, I list what I want and what each would offer, and purchase whatever I think would meet my needs the best. A couple lessons I've learned:

I try to take good care of my equipment, but it tends to get pretty roughed up- other photogs hit it, cameras on straps bump together, stuff gets rained on, etc. Because of that, I only buy lenses that I think can take the abuse I give them. Something you have to consider is how rough a life your equipment lives and will whatever you get be able to survive your use of it? If you shoot mostly in studio, this may not matter, but if you are in the field, it can make a huge difference.


My main lenses are all L glass, my long lenses are 2.8 and my walk around wide is an f/4. When I am shooting, I find that I always wish I could push my f/ stop lower, use higher iso's, etc. When I bought my wide (17-40 f/4L), I couldn't afford the 2.8 equivalent, but there have been tons of situations where I wish my glass was faster. Other people might not even notice a difference. It really depends on how and where you shoot.


One last thing worth thinking about is what lenses you already have. You might want to make sure what you choose compliments what you already have. Good luck!

[tmorterlaing]

I think the answer to this really depends on how you use your gear.
I try to take good care of my equipment, but it tends to get pretty roughed up- other photogs hit it, cameras on straps bump together, stuff gets rained on, etc. Because of that, I only buy lenses that I think can take the abuse I give them. Something you have to consider is how rough a life your equipment lives and will whatever you get be able to survive your use of it? If you shoot mostly in studio, this may not matter, but if you are in the field, it can make a huge difference.


Sure- but you could afford the Tamron twice before paying for an L :D


My main lenses are all L glass, my long lenses are 2.8 and my walk around wide is an f/4. When I am shooting, I find that I always wish I could push my f/ stop lower, use higher iso's, etc. When I bought my wide (17-40 f/4L), I couldn't afford the 2.8 equivalent, but there have been tons of situations where I wish my glass was faster. Other people might not even notice a difference. It really depends on how and where you shoot.

So this would suggest that if build quality isn't a factor, perhaps a 2.8 would be best? So that sortar rules our the f4L. I also just looked at some reviews and people seem to be saying YES the 24-105L is awesome, but a little underwhelming for an L lens, and comparable with the Tamron (and a few other much cheaper lenses) in terms of IQ.



One last thing worth thinking about is what lenses you already have. You might want to make sure what you choose compliments what you already have. Good luck!

Cheers! I have the 18-55 yucky kit lens. I dunno what it is about that lens, people have told me across a few forums its not THAT bad, but theres something about it, its SO light and SO plasticky and dark, and Im SURE its not as sharp as people make it out to be...rant over. I do also have the nifty fifty though (f1.8 50mm) which is lovely, super sharp, super fast, probably the best bang for the buck money can buy :D. So a better quality general use lens is what I need now, before I start investing in zooms.

[Michael]

Sure- but you could afford the Tamron twice before paying for an L :D
[/COLOR]


lol, perhaps, but based on my usage, I'd rather spend double the price on L then possibly have to replace the lens in a year. If your lenses tend to not get roughed up, then that certainly wouldn't be an issue for you.



So this would suggest that if build quality isn't a factor, perhaps a 2.8 would be best?


If you find yourself needing more light when shooting with your 18-55, then the extra stop might be a good idea, even at the loss of the 4 mm on the wide side of the zoom.

The only other thing that I can think to mention would be issues of compatibility. Third party lenses used to have issues with auto-focus, they were reputed to back focus or front focus. I have heard that they have gotten better, but it might be something worth looking into.

I have rarely heard of someone being unhappy with an L lens, and if the Tamron is sharp and fast as well, it would seem you couldn't go wrong with any of them. As long as you have decently functioning gear, your decisions in making the image will outweigh small differences in equipment. Best of luck!

[tmorterlaing]

OK, so here's a bit of a follow up for anyone who stumbles across this in the future as well. I bought the Tamron 28-75 2.8 to have a play and have sold it 3 days later. Whilst the image quality is sharp, as you have all said there's more to a lens than this- I didn't like the colour reproduction, the lack of IS meant it's difficult to use at 70mm, the f2.8 wasn't a good enough difference for me to not have to slow the shutter a lot indoors. The Bokeh was OK- but I was expecting more at 2.8, especially compared to the bokeh on the Sigma 24-70 on a friend's Nikon. Also the build quality, whilst I have been warned, really WAS bad. And I mean, in comparison the event the £70 kit lens (18-55)- whilst the 18-55 feels too light and plastic, at least the zoom is smooth and the focus, whilst oversensitive, is nice to use. And it has IS. The 28-75 felt clunky to zoom (and trust me I'm NOT picky about stuff like that- it almost felt sticky, like I was fighting to zoom the last few mm). The focus was OK, but felt so... 'plastic on plastic', like cheap. So as a trade off, the 2.8 wasn't worth it.


So now I'm back at square 1- although at least the Tamron's been eliminated. Please can someone decide for me. Best high quality walkabout lens for Canon 7D.
Canon 24-70 f2.8L (although at the price point I'd have to make do with my 18-55 for another month, which is a factor).
Canon 18-55 f2.8 IS (worried about lack of range yes yes I KNOW about the 1.6 crop factor).
Canon 24-105 f4L (worried about low light/ less shallow bokeh)
Sigma 17-70 f2.8-f4 OS (Price is good- lens experience though? Almost scared of another third party lens now :S)
-any other suggestions:)
pls help!

Cheers :D

[Steve Paxton]

I am sorry to hear that you had a bad experience. You definitely don't want to settle for a cheap lens. I have the Canon 24-105mm f4 (I actually have two! Be sure to read this (http://paxtonprints.com/forum/showthread.php/1128-For-Your-Viewing-Pleasure-(you-don-t-want-to-miss-this-one!)?highlight=24-105) when you have a sec.) and love them. Sure it's an f4 lens, but they are top notch and should make a great all around lens for you. I think for all around range and price, this is a good lens to jump into.

[tmorterlaing]

Cheers for the advice! Think this is the one Im going to go for, just waiting for a few cheques to clear haha!

[tmorterlaing]

Last last question, what's the bokeh and shallow DOF capabilities of this lens? I know it wont be as shallow as a 2.8, and I know about the circular iris so the bokeh is nice when you DO get it, but if you want shallow is it OK on this lens? Any examples around?

Thanks!

[Steve Paxton]

I think it really depends on what you are looking for in bokeh - are you interested in using it for portraits?

I don't consider the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM a crazy, awesome lens for bokeh, but it's not bad. Overall, I think it produces average to above average bokeh. I use it for portraits and all around event photography as it's a pretty good all around lens. You can go wide (especially on a full frame camera) and zoom in pretty tight making it a great choice for most situations. It's the lens that just stays on my camera. I will also add that it's a wonderful lens for landscape photography. I use this lens for virtually all of my homeless images (http://paxtonprints.com/index.php?x=the_least_of_these).

For a lot of my portraits, I use an f4 70-200mm because I prefer the bokeh that it produces over the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM. Although a little long, it a great portrait lens. One of these days, I would like to get a Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 L II USM (it's over $2000!).

The-Digital-Picture has a pretty good review of the lens here (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx). I encourage you to carefully read it over and compare it to some of the lenses before you decide.

Here are a few images I have taken with the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM:

1981 1983

1982

[jrome]

That stinks about the Tamron lens not working out for you. I had this same issue come up with me about a year ago, you can definitely find posts from me here on this issue. I was torn between getting the Tamron and Sigma lens and in the end I got a superb deal on a Sigma 24-60 f/2.8. I wish I had that extra 10mm sometimes but overall it's an amazing lens. The bokeh is outstanding on mine when shooting at 2.8-4.0 or so, not bad especially for being a shorter range lens. I've compared photos taken on my camera with my Sigma to photos on my camera with a 24-70L and I can't tell a difference when doing tests, even with CA. I know I don't have the Sigma 24-70 but all I can say is that they do make great lenses.

The decision is yours, but don't let a red-ring snob (sorry Steve :;;D:) influence you too much. One thing I would really look at is that the average life of a lens is 12 years, while the average life you'll use a body is only three. I'd say to make an investment in it, but make it count. I wouldn't go with the Canon 18-55 or the Sigma 17-70. I'd stick with either the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, Canon 24-70L. The 24-105L is a good lens but, for me, it's too slow, I use f/2.8 way too much and a lot of times actually wish I had some primes for f/1.2-1.8.

[tmorterlaing]

Interesting you say that- just quickly did you mean the Canon 17-55? Cos I already have the 18-55, I think they're two VERY different lenses :D

[jrome]

My bad.. the 17-55 f/2.8. I've heard the lens isn't as sharp as the others mentioned. Plus the crop factor if you ever go FF.

[tmorterlaing]

So I ended up with...........(drum roll please).........................
24-105 f4L!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry there was just too much excitement for one exclamation mark! Read many many reviews but in the end decided people are right- build quality is probably pretty important. Even over the last week ive thrown it in a shoulder bag and bumped it (and the camera) into stuff so that build quality means itll probably outlast. I havent been sufficiently pixel peeping to check its 'tack sharp' reputation, but what ive taken so far has impressed me!

Also the DOF is plenty shallow. Dunno what people are talking about when they say its not. And I dont need the extra stops with f2.8- although the IS on the L means I can slow the shutter by 3 stops anyway which is nice....so I guess I kinda dont lose light really.....

I love that all of Canon's 'L' series lenses also have an 'auto framing' button which allows the photographer to become a pro purely because they spent more on a lens as well...

[Steve Paxton]

Congrats! I think you will be happy with it. Be sure to post some pics!

[JohnB]

I wouldn't hesitate to get the 24-105L myself. It's very appealing as a general purpose lens as it has a wide range of focal lengths and a constant aperture. I have the 24-70mm f/2.8L and absolutely love it. It's my favorite lens next to my 100mm f/2.8L Macro.

If you were to get the 24-70mm lens, you won't be disappointed. It's HEAVY though! I had to buy the battery grip for my Canon XTi so I could hold my camera comfortably with that lens on it. I don't know how it'll be with the 7d, but I plan on finding out around Christmas time.

Edit: I guess I should have read both pages before responding! Congrats on your new lens. :)

[tmorterlaing]

I wouldn't hesitate to get the 24-105L myself. It's very appealing as a general purpose lens as it has a wide range of focal lengths and a constant aperture. I have the 24-70mm f/2.8L and absolutely love it. It's my favorite lens next to my 100mm f/2.8L Macro.

If you were to get the 24-70mm lens, you won't be disappointed. It's HEAVY though! I had to buy the battery grip for my Canon XTi so I could hold my camera comfortably with that lens on it. I don't know how it'll be with the 7d, but I plan on finding out around Christmas time.

Edit: I guess I should have read both pages before responding! Congrats on your new lens. :)

Lol thats cool! Always nice to have more affirmation Ive made a nice choice! I would like a 24-70 but didnt have the extra couple of hundred it would cost at the moment. f4 with IS I think is a great aperture for a walk around lens, and so far VERY pleased with the quality of it.

[JohnB]

I didn't realize the 24-105mm f/4L had IS. That makes it even more appealing. Too bad I don't have another thousand to spend on a lens. I just used it on my macro and my next purchase is probably going to be a 7D or it's replacement.

[tmorterlaing]

What camera do you have at the moment?

[JohnB]

I have a Canon XTi (or 400d outside of America). It doesn't have a spot meter, video, live display or the timer functions that the newer models have. It could also perform better in the dark at higher ISOs.

[Michael]

I love that all of Canon's 'L' series lenses also have an 'auto framing' button which allows the photographer to become a pro purely because they spent more on a lens as well...

Auto-framing button?

[JohnB]

Auto-framing button?

I think he was being facetious. They don't have an "Auto Frame" button, but they sure are good at making pictures look good! The 24-70mm f/2.8L especially!

[tmorterlaing]

Haha yeah :D Sorry was trying a little ironic humour drawing attention to the idea that some people seem to have in their heads that in order to take an amazing pic you need expensive lenses, or the idea that you are not a good photographer unless you have the bestlenses. The best camera is the one you have with you, and likewise for the lens :D