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

BobHaverford said:

de Bruijne said:

P J said:

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.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

PHT said:

Sorry to be critical PJ, but you MIGHT be making the same mistake
as you did last time making this post. You said that you listened
to beginners who were just making useless posts; and at the end you
were stuck with lenses that were not helpful to you. I believe
that most people posts things and judge things base on their
estimations without consider the other side. As a result, you do
have a tug of war thing going on here without any good relevance to
your goal. Which we can obviously see by the way you sway back and
forth on your choices. But I do see some good observations by the
veteran photographers who claimed that they have tested both
lenses. From their experiences, I truly thank them, because their
insights are truly the most useful. It all comes down to you, I do
believe in you that you know the difference between these lenses
without anyone having to tell you. You are just wanting someone to
make the deciscion for you.

But anyways, here is my (beginner's) take regarding the lense
choices. I was like you, stuck between the tamron or the canon. I
chose Tamron because....

only one factor can determine this kind of choice: If your income
is more than $80,000 a year, go with the Canon, otherwise buy the
Tamron like the rest of us poor folks.

Click to expand...

Eric Chi said:

For wide angle focal length, there is huge diffence betweren 24 and
28, even more between 20 and 24. It's not just numbers. The
difference between 38.4 and 44.8 is pretty much none. Both don't
even qualify as wide angle (which starts at 35 and going downward.
This of course is my standard.) Both are "normal" focal length now.

After the 1.6 factor, the advantage for Canon at 24 is pretty much
gone.
Don't let the numbers confuse you.

Eric.

koceto said:

With a crop factor of 1.6 24mm is better than 28mm for wide angle...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Gerard Coulson said:

But to cut a long story short I then did a great deal of research
and ended up buying the Tamron (for its sharpness, contrast, speed

• not price) AND the 17-40 L for the width - total price still less

than the 24-70!

In short, consider the 17-40 L and the Tamron 28-75 as a far more
practical solution than the 24-70 L by itself for less than you'll
pay for the 24-70.

Click to expand...

BobHaverford said:

Gosh, I hope he listened to me! Or maybe I'm not experienced enough!

Click to expand...

P J said:

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.

Click to expand...

Adrian Joseph Roy said:

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.

Click to expand...

P J said:

Adrian Joseph Roy said:

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

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Adrian Joseph Roy said:

No PJ, your post was completely valid. So was Jay's. It was
DigitalWolf who snapped back at Jay's post that annoyed me. Jay
was simply trying to give you his .02 and got a slap in the face
for it.

Adrian

Click to expand...

P J said:

Jay Brookstone said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

P J said:

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

Click to expand...

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

When it is working it does OK- nothing to

P J said:

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

Click to expand...

Unreliable...how?

Last week the commutator brushes on the electronics

P J said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

P J said:

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

Click to expand...

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

P J said:

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.

Click to expand...

What do you use for your backup?

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

P J said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

P J said:

alekas said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

P J said:

TAMRON:
Significantly less expensive, lighter, significantly longer
warranty, a bit warmer pictures.

It appears that both take great photo's. What did I miss or can
ANYBODY else add? I'm really torn on this issue. I am leaning
toward Canon for quality and speed but Tamron has the serious edge
on price and warranty. HELP!

Click to expand...

mahjungpan said:

BobHaverford said:

P J said:

BobHaverford said:

found the Tamron to be slightly better optically.

Click to expand...

Can you explain this more? Specifics?

Click to expand...

First impression: the build quality is not as good as a Canon L
series lens. Duh! It costs about 1/4 as much for goodness sake.
This is a plastic lens - not metal. But I must admit that the build
quality was pretty darn good. Better, I think, than the Sigma
lenses I've seen. Fit and finish was very nice and tight. I'd give
the build quality a 4/5. Not bad. I figured I could live with it.

Next, I put the lens on my camera. I'd read reviews complaining
about the speed of the focusing. It may not be quite as quick as my
200 f2.8 L series lens but it was pretty darn good and for my
purposes, plenty fast. A 4.5/5

I'd read reviews complaining about the noise and the fact that the
AF was not USM. I thought the AF worked very quietly. Not at all
distracting and barely discernable. Noise - not an issue.

Then, I took pictures with the lens and I was absolutely floored!
How in the world did Tamron manage to produce a lens that performed
so well optically for such a reasonable price?! Beautiful contrast,
excellent resolution, gorgeous colors, and extremely sharp,
particularly above f2.8. But, f2.8 is very good as well.

Obviously the first comparison that comes to mind is between this
lens and the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L. I would say, I kid you not, that
this lens is in every respect optically the equal of the Canon or
better than the Canon. I could not believe it.

I tested this lens directly against a brand new copy of the Canon
24-70 f2.8L. Method: I tested both lenses on a tripod @ F 2.8 and
8.0 @ 28mm 50mm and 70mm. Target limestone wall 9.5 feet parallel
to the sensor plane. Remote release employed. No mirror lockup.
Center and all four corners were evaluated to my naked eye on a
monitor using 100% crops. Both lenses were new copies received
within the last 7 days.

The limestone wall lent itself perfectly to evaluating sharpness
and subtle contrast and color rendition. There was enormous detail
present in the wall with subtle colorations present.

Findings:

28MM F8: Tamron definitely sharper in the center and corners

28MM F2.8: Tamron definitely sharper in the center and corners

50MM F8: Tamron slightly sharper in the center and very slightly
sharper in corners

50MM F2.8: Tamron slightly sharper in center and equal in corners.

70MM F2.8: Canon sharper in center and at corners. Incidentally
noted was inability of Tamron to focus as sharply as I was able to
achieve with manual focusing.

70MM F8: Tamron sharper in center with Canon slightly sharper in
corners.

Some have said that there is less flare with the Canon, but if you
use the lens hood that should not be a problem. I didn't notice
excessive flare in my copy.

Admittedly there is significant copy to copy variation in both the
Canon and the Tamron, but my findings convinced me that at 1/4 the
price, and with the Tamron weighing 1 pound less than the Canon
that the Tamron was the lens for me. Optically 5/5!!

I cannot recommend this lens highly enough. It is the first
non-Canon lens I have owned and I am thrilled.

mahjungpan said:

I absolutely

mahjungpan said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Size, optical quality, price.

mahjungpan said:

mahjungpan said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

See above

mahjungpan said:

mahjungpan said:

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!

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

CompUSA sold the lens for $320 minus $30 rebate $290 Voila!!

Click to expand...

--
MJ

Click to expand...

PHT said:

Sorry to be critical PJ, but you MIGHT be making the same mistake
as you did last time making this post. You said that you listened
to beginners who were just making useless posts; and at the end you
were stuck with lenses that were not helpful to you. I believe
that most people posts things and judge things base on their
estimations without consider the other side. As a result, you do
have a tug of war thing going on here without any good relevance to
your goal. Which we can obviously see by the way you sway back and
forth on your choices. But I do see some good observations by the
veteran photographers who claimed that they have tested both
lenses. From their experiences, I truly thank them, because their
insights are truly the most useful. It all comes down to you, I do
believe in you that you know the difference between these lenses
without anyone having to tell you. You are just wanting someone to
make the deciscion for you.

But anyways, here is my (beginner's) take regarding the lense
choices. I was like you, stuck between the tamron or the canon. I
chose Tamron because....

only one factor can determine this kind of choice: If your income
is more than $80,000 a year, go with the Canon, otherwise buy the
Tamron like the rest of us poor folks.

Click to expand...

P J said:

I have flip-flopped on this. If I listen only to pro/more
experienced they all say go Canon. It really does come down to
price. You're not being critical, I appreciate your good post! I
really didn't know the differences (other than price) between the
two lenses until this thread and it has been very helpful. I do
make a good income, but I am also frugal.

Click to expand...

P J said:

and you make very compelling reasons to go Tamron. Thanks for all
your facts. I'm still deciding. Good info.

Click to expand...

Kbee said:

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

Have I wasted my time? Or does it have some demo value?

Hoping you will respone, Negative is fine.

BobHaverford said:

de Bruijne said:

P J said:

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.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...