Canon 24-70 2.8L vs Tamron 28-75 2.8

[P J]

But I'm being open minded.

Unfortunately myself and a number of other have had problems with
our 24-70 L Canons performing poorly, seizing up, parts falling
off, etc.

Parts falling off? Serious? What parts? How?

And then there are focus issues on 10D and D60 bodies.

I have 20D so who cares about old cameras.

I've had this problem with multiple copies and can can say it is my
least favorite lens.

Multiple copies? Serious? Why do you buy more if it is your least favorite?

When it is working it does OK- nothing to

write home about. The large apertutre is nice. But its
unreliable.

Unreliable...how?

Last week the commutator brushes on the electronics

board inside the lens snagged on some other part and the zoom ring
seized up - again. Its been to Canon/Irvine for repair many times,
sometimes coming back broken. They must have monkeys running that
shop. This time I've taken the "Lens fron Hell" to a trusted 3rd
party repair outfit that does most of my equipment. I've never had
this kind of experience with other Canon lenses, L or not, and it
has changed my view on Canon's QC and service ability.

Sounds like you definately have a bad lens. But then again you said you've had multiple copies. I'd be dang mad if this happened to me.

You can have bad luck with any lens maker. Some more than others.
The 24-70 f2.8 L is Canons dark pony.

Why do you say this is Canon's dark pony? Is it just your dark pony, or do you have facts to argue this point?

And people are polarized on

the topic. Yes, there are many who worship this lens, and it
(usually) works for them. To me it is a tool that has left me down
many times. I always have to carry a backup for this piece of
junk.

What do you use for your backup?

Then again, I have one from the first year of production.

Maybe Canon has improved by now. Then again, maybe not.

It sounds like you've got a dog. Don't every buy the first model of an automobile. This evidently applies to lens' too! I hope they are improved based upon your experiences.

 

[BobHaverford]

found the Tamron to be slightly better optically. I absolutely LOVE my Tamron and would not trade it for the Canon. My copy of the 24-70L went directly back to Dell after my tests.

Some people aren't satisfied unless they are carrying around an L lens. Fine. No problem. But if you do not have a specific need for the L (build quality and focusing speed) then the Tamron will serve you as well.

My Tamron cost $290 after rebates and the L was $1139. By my arithmetic that comes to a cost savings of ~ 75% or $849. I'd just as soon spend that additional money on the 135 f2.0L - now THAT'S a lens!

Reader beware...If only I had known beforehand!

I've read hundreds of messages in this formum (which is awesome),
but early on I took advice of uninformed or inexperienced users.
Don't take all posts as truth.

I'm new SLR 20D owner of one month. I've taken several thousand
photos (many turned out excellent without PP) and now have more
experience and insight. I've created a couple of DVD slideshows,
some prints, and family and friends love them (as do I).

So here's my insight (and slight aggravation). I purchased 50
f1.8, 17-85 f4-5.6, and 70-200 f4L lenses. I LOVE the 50 and
70-200. BUT I wish I would have known and purchased the 24-70 2.8L
instead of 17-85, but the price scared me off and I did not fully
understand significance of aperture until I started taking photos
(all the reading cannot compensate for experience). In hindsight I
would have spent $500 more for L glass plus take advantage of
triple rebate (instead of just double rebate) and the net price
difference would have less significant.

But price is not necessarily the main point. I want quality and
range. I like range and size of 17-85 but I don't like the low
light and want/need a faster lens. I really enjoy taking candid
photos and with cold weather most of them have been indoors in low
lighting. Perhaps I'll use 17-85 more in summer. I have 580ex
flash, and that is cool and great to use, but I like natural light.
17-85 is also not good for low lit gyms for my sons' basketball
games, I need a much faster lens.

So, here is my question...

I will more than likely upgrade to either Canon 24-70 f2.8L or
Tamron 28-75 f2.8 at some point in future. I'm leaning toward
Canon, but price is about half if I go Tamron instead. What will I
gain or lose in going with either one? What are pros/cons of each?
Will I regret going Tamron instead of Canon?

Go ahead, post your thoughts, regardless of experience. I'll read
through all of them. But I'll try to only listen to more
experienced photographers.

 

[Kbee222425]

These are some test shots I took mostly for myself.

http://www.pbase.com/kbphotos/new_lens

Good Luck,
MarvC

P>

Go ahead, post your thoughts, regardless of experience. I'll read
through all of them. But I'll try to only listen to more
experienced photographers.

--
My pictures are not great, but they are mine!
http://www.pbase.com/kbphotos

 

[P J]

Eight months is a long time. That means it must have been pretty funny. His post is definately not in sync with other posts. But I'm still taking it all in. Sounds like he got burned. And more than once (which I can't figure out). Maybe he's hard on lenses or something.

..in 8 months!!! Wow, I don't know where to begin. It is obvious
you have an agenda for writing this post. Either you were really
burned with this lens or I suspect you are making up a bunch of
lies and are anti Canon and just posted to get
everyone..ooooooooooohhhhh scared into not buying CANON. Dude, the
Canon 24-70L by the majority of people who have posted like this
lens because it flat out works and is excellent quality. Dude, the
reviews on this lens are excellent.

I think I have to agree with this. But I haven't yet read any official reviews or comparisons. Anybody have links to some? When did the Canon 24-70 2.8L lens come out?

Please, don't bother to post such junk on here. It is blatantly
obvious with all your made up stuf by the way you write your post.
Nice try but I would think the majority of us wouldn't buy such bs.

Keep Taking Photos,
Jeff
The Digital Wolf

 

[alekas]

I will not comment on quality (I don't have 24-70L), but I have Tamton ($300) and it's on my camera 95% of the time.

Just one addition for you to consider - Tamron has 6 years USA warranty vs Canon has only 1 year.

Also, even if you have 24-70 - Tamron is a better walk around lens (weight, price etc). I mean you can buy Tamron and then latter buy Canon if you really need it.

Alex

--
http://www.pbase.com/alekas

 

[MarvC]

Same logic here. The Tamron was a very good choice for my budget and performance is on par with shots from the L glass.

MarvC

Some people aren't satisfied unless they are carrying around an L
lens. Fine. No problem. But if you do not have a specific need
for the L (build quality and focusing speed) then the Tamron will
serve you as well.

My Tamron cost $290 after rebates and the L was $1139. By my
arithmetic that comes to a cost savings of ~ 75% or $849. I'd just
as soon spend that additional money on the 135 f2.0L - now THAT'S a
lens!

Reader beware...If only I had known beforehand!

I've read hundreds of messages in this formum (which is awesome),
but early on I took advice of uninformed or inexperienced users.
Don't take all posts as truth.

I'm new SLR 20D owner of one month. I've taken several thousand
photos (many turned out excellent without PP) and now have more
experience and insight. I've created a couple of DVD slideshows,
some prints, and family and friends love them (as do I).

So here's my insight (and slight aggravation). I purchased 50
f1.8, 17-85 f4-5.6, and 70-200 f4L lenses. I LOVE the 50 and
70-200. BUT I wish I would have known and purchased the 24-70 2.8L
instead of 17-85, but the price scared me off and I did not fully
understand significance of aperture until I started taking photos
(all the reading cannot compensate for experience). In hindsight I
would have spent $500 more for L glass plus take advantage of
triple rebate (instead of just double rebate) and the net price
difference would have less significant.

But price is not necessarily the main point. I want quality and
range. I like range and size of 17-85 but I don't like the low
light and want/need a faster lens. I really enjoy taking candid
photos and with cold weather most of them have been indoors in low
lighting. Perhaps I'll use 17-85 more in summer. I have 580ex
flash, and that is cool and great to use, but I like natural light.
17-85 is also not good for low lit gyms for my sons' basketball
games, I need a much faster lens.

So, here is my question...

I will more than likely upgrade to either Canon 24-70 f2.8L or
Tamron 28-75 f2.8 at some point in future. I'm leaning toward
Canon, but price is about half if I go Tamron instead. What will I
gain or lose in going with either one? What are pros/cons of each?
Will I regret going Tamron instead of Canon?

Go ahead, post your thoughts, regardless of experience. I'll read
through all of them. But I'll try to only listen to more
experienced photographers.

 

[P J]

I don't plan on selling, but I what has higher resale value, a Yugo or Mercedes? Although I'm not sure Tamron can be compared to Yugo or Canon to Mercedes. But you get the idea.

 

[P J]

Maybe oneday on the 24-70mm Canon L glass may be never.
I do not shoot sports or anything else which exceeds the Tamrons
focus speed.
I bought the Tamron 28-75mm XR DI and am very happy with the lens.
Some have said bad copies are floating around.
What lens mfg does have those! Canon is not exempt!

Good point.

The Tamron is slower at focus than the ring USM lenses, but for me
it is fast enough for my needs, picture quality is very good! Sharp
and good color out of the lens.

picture quality is what we're all after. Speed is important too. Depends on what you shoot.

You gotta follow you thoughts and pocketbook on this one. I have NO
reservations about buying this lens, yes I also did a lot of
research between the Canon, Tamron and Sigma.
I am happy and have around $700.00 more in my bank account.

And that's a significant amount! That's my dilemma. I could by nice tripod and ball head or something. Or more money in bank. Hummm???

Good Luck,
MarvC

P>

Go ahead, post your thoughts, regardless of experience. I'll read
through all of them. But I'll try to only listen to more
experienced photographers.

 

[NDeb]

the colors!!! I am still learning to use the lens but I'm very impressed, especially since I take lots of beach and water photos. Since the lens is sealed, I don't have to worry about sand or dust getting into the lens, and if I wanted to sell it, I know I will get a very good price! Here's my gallery if you want to see photos taken with the 24-70L:

http://NDeb.smugmug.com/gallery/386426/1/15402040

 

[P J]

These are some test shots I took mostly for myself.

http://www.pbase.com/kbphotos/new_lens

I don't want to be critical, but the pictures in your link seem 'average' to me. Probably would have had similar results with Canon. Sky is gray, but I see faint hints of blue. Nothing vibrant. Boring content. Did you shoot these from camera store when shopping or something?

 

[Adrian Joseph Roy]

Jay has merely laid out his bad experiences with this lens in a "for what it's worth" context, clearly taking into account that there are many other people who love this particular lens and haven't hand any problem with it.

Jay probably doesn't have multiple versions of the lens to try out and compare, he only has the one that has obviously let him down many times - and coupled with what he paid for it, the taste in is mouth must be bitter indeed. Yet he still manages to temper his story with a view from the other side.

You said "Either you were really burned with this lens...". I think that's exactly what he's trying to say - plain and simple. This one lens, amongst all the others that have been built and bought, turned out to be of poor quality. Then you go on to call him a liar and spout of other baseless statements that add no real value to the original thread.

Posts like yours add no value to this or any other forum and discourage honest readers like Jay from sharing their experiences.

You should appologize at the very least.

Adrian

Unfortunately myself and a number of other have had problems with
our 24-70 L Canons performing poorly, seizing up, parts falling
off, etc. And then there are focus issues on 10D and D60 bodies.
I've had this problem with multiple copies and can can say it is my
least favorite lens. When it is working it does OK- nothing to
write home about. The large apertutre is nice. But its
unreliable. Last week the commutator brushes on the electronics
board inside the lens snagged on some other part and the zoom ring
seized up - again. Its been to Canon/Irvine for repair many times,
sometimes coming back broken. They must have monkeys running that
shop. This time I've taken the "Lens fron Hell" to a trusted 3rd
party repair outfit that does most of my equipment. I've never had
this kind of experience with other Canon lenses, L or not, and it
has changed my view on Canon's QC and service ability.

You can have bad luck with any lens maker. Some more than others.
The 24-70 f2.8 L is Canons dark pony. And people are polarized on
the topic. Yes, there are many who worship this lens, and it
(usually) works for them. To me it is a tool that has left me down
many times. I always have to carry a backup for this piece of
junk. Then again, I have one from the first year of production.
Maybe Canon has improved by now. Then again, maybe not.

..in 8 months!!! Wow, I don't know where to begin. It is obvious
you have an agenda for writing this post. Either you were really
burned with this lens or I suspect you are making up a bunch of
lies and are anti Canon and just posted to get
everyone..ooooooooooohhhhh scared into not buying CANON. Dude, the
Canon 24-70L by the majority of people who have posted like this
lens because it flat out works and is excellent quality. Dude, the
reviews on this lens are excellent.

Please, don't bother to post such junk on here. It is blatantly
obvious with all your made up stuf by the way you write your post.
Nice try but I would think the majority of us wouldn't buy such bs.

Keep Taking Photos,
Jeff
The Digital Wolf

--
Adrian Roy
http://www.coldspringhead.ca/gallery

 

[P J]

Okay, so you snagged my attention big time on this post. I have been seriously leaning to Canon and now this info. Humm...

found the Tamron to be slightly better optically.

Can you explain this more? Specifics?

I absolutely

LOVE my Tamron and would not trade it for the Canon. My copy of
the 24-70L went directly back to Dell after my tests.

What it price or other that caused you not to like Canon?

Some people aren't satisfied unless they are carrying around an L
lens. Fine. No problem. But if you do not have a specific need
for the L (build quality and focusing speed) then the Tamron will
serve you as well.

Since I've never held either lens I cannot judge the build quality you describe. Is it significantly better quality. I do like the faster focusing but again, since I have not tried myself it's hard to know how much difference there really is.

My Tamron cost $290 after rebates and the L was $1139. By my
arithmetic that comes to a cost savings of ~ 75% or $849. I'd just
as soon spend that additional money on the 135 f2.0L - now THAT'S a
lens!

I tend to agree with this. How did you get such great price? Now I'm really confused on the matter. Do I go for serious savings or for quality?

 

[P J]

I will not comment on quality (I don't have 24-70L), but I have
Tamton ($300) and it's on my camera 95% of the time.

Just one addition for you to consider - Tamron has 6 years USA
warranty vs Canon has only 1 year.

Huge difference. I would have not considered this either. Good info.

Also, even if you have 24-70 - Tamron is a better walk around lens
(weight, price etc). I mean you can buy Tamron and then latter buy
Canon if you really need it.

Another good point. But I don't want to toss dollars out the window if I can help it. Weight is another considereation. Thanks.

Alex

--
http://www.pbase.com/alekas

 

[Kbee222425]

Thanks. Critical, no problem. shopping, yes. Boring, yep. I took them to get an idea of how good the lens was. The color, for the conditions, was very good. The sharpness seemed good to me. I an just an average photographer. What I was looking for here is criticism of the lens. I am not qualified to be a judge of good or bad lenses.

These are some test shots I took mostly for myself.

http://www.pbase.com/kbphotos/new_lens

I don't want to be critical, but the pictures in your link seem
'average' to me. Probably would have had similar results with
Canon. Sky is gray, but I see faint hints of blue. Nothing
vibrant. Boring content. Did you shoot these from camera store
when shopping or something?

--
My pictures are not great, but they are mine!
http://www.pbase.com/kbphotos

 

[P J]

I don't know if this reply is directed to me or not. When you read my first post you will ready that I am leaning toward Canon. But I don't have any agenda. I'm trying to decipher good from the bad. Is his experience from one lens (his lens) or ALL lenses. I'd be mad if I had bad lens!!!

Jay has merely laid out his bad experiences with this lens in a
"for what it's worth" context, clearly taking into account that
there are many other people who love this particular lens and
haven't hand any problem with it.

Jay probably doesn't have multiple versions of the lens to try out
and compare, he only has the one that has obviously let him down
many times - and coupled with what he paid for it, the taste in is
mouth must be bitter indeed. Yet he still manages to temper his
story with a view from the other side.

You said "Either you were really burned with this lens...". I
think that's exactly what he's trying to say - plain and simple.
This one lens, amongst all the others that have been built and
bought, turned out to be of poor quality. Then you go on to call
him a liar and spout of other baseless statements that add no real
value to the original thread.

Posts like yours add no value to this or any other forum and
discourage honest readers like Jay from sharing their experiences.

You should appologize at the very least.

Adrian

 

[P J]

Nice shots. How much post-processing did you do? I like the fact that lense is sealed. You reemphasize compelling points here.

the colors!!! I am still learning to use the lens but I'm very
impressed, especially since I take lots of beach and water photos.
Since the lens is sealed, I don't have to worry about sand or dust
getting into the lens, and if I wanted to sell it, I know I will
get a very good price! Here's my gallery if you want to see photos
taken with the 24-70L:

http://NDeb.smugmug.com/gallery/386426/1/15402040

 

[NDeb]

and these were NOT taken in RAW! Good luck in your decision! -debbie

the colors!!! I am still learning to use the lens but I'm very
impressed, especially since I take lots of beach and water photos.
Since the lens is sealed, I don't have to worry about sand or dust
getting into the lens, and if I wanted to sell it, I know I will
get a very good price! Here's my gallery if you want to see photos
taken with the 24-70L:

http://NDeb.smugmug.com/gallery/386426/1/15402040

--
http://ndeb.smugmug.com/

 

[Kbee222425]

If the pictures don't demonstrate the capabilities of the lens, then I might as well delete the gallery.

These are some test shots I took mostly for myself.

http://www.pbase.com/kbphotos/new_lens

I don't want to be critical, but the pictures in your link seem
'average' to me. Probably would have had similar results with
Canon. Sky is gray, but I see faint hints of blue. Nothing
vibrant. Boring content. Did you shoot these from camera store
when shopping or something?

--
My pictures are not great, but they are mine!
http://www.pbase.com/kbphotos

--
My pictures are not great, but they are mine!
http://www.pbase.com/kbphotos

 

[P J]

Very good post with good info.

I have been a pro wedding and portrait photographer for 16 years. I
have owned and used both lenses. So here is the low down:

which lens to buy is a matter of what your personal needs are:

a good copy of either lens has the potential for pro quality
images; both lenses are used by top wedding and portrait
professionals; both are almost too sharp for head and shoulder
portraiture and may require postprocessing to soften

it is often hard to find a really good copy of either of these lenses

Why and how do you tell? Is there a way to test before actually buying?

the Canon L is built like a tank and will last many years but many
find it heavy to carry around all day

good copies of both lenses have comparable sharpness at all
apertures and focal lengths

both lenses are relatively good against lens flare but the lens
coating of the Canon L is slightly better than the Tamron allowing
it to handle flare slightly better than the Tamron

both lenses are relatively good against chromatic aberration but
the Canon L has slightly less than the Tamron when shooting at f2.8
with strong backlighting

neither lens is reknown for its beautiful smooth bokeh (compared to
the 70-200L) but because of the number and configuration of its
lens aperture blades, the Canon L has a bit more pleasing bokeh
when shooting with contrasty backlit situations

those folks with good copies of either lens are generally very
pleased with the results of both lenses. Image quality of both in
normal shooting situations is very high. Both have excellent
sharpness which is good even at 2.8, good contrast, and excellent
color rendition although the Tamron tends to be a slight bit warmer
(faint warm color cast)--which some may prefer while others may not
like

is the Canon L worth it???--IMO, for most folks, no--it's not
worth it; but, for a few, yes--the slight advantages might be; on
my calibrated computer monitor, it is hard to tell which straight
out of the camera image was taken with which lens--provided you get
a good copy of either lens--which will be your biggest challenge!

You make a very compelling aguement to go with Tamron, especially since I am beginner (but with high expectations and talent). I will probably not be able to tell the difference except when it comes to focus speed. But I don't know how much of factor this will be. But I like action and candid shots and have 5 kids (and beautiful wife) to take fun photos of.

Good luck!!!

Looks like I'll need it!

--
Vance Zachary
http://www.pbase.com/photoworkszach
http://www.photoworksbyzachary.com

 

[Vance Zachary]

All except the last are at 1600 iso on the 20D (except last is from 10D) and are straight out of the camera with no postprocessing except B & W conversion and reducing size of file:











more Tamron images at: http://www.pbase.com/photoworkszach/tamron_28_75

and at: http://www.pbase.com/photoworkszach/tamron_28_75_at_28

--
Vance Zachary
http://www.pbase.com/photoworkszach
http://www.photoworksbyzachary.com