Tamron 24-135 f3.5 vs 28-75 f2.8

I've been considering these two lenses based on specs, recommendations, and how they'd suit my needs, but I've been wondering how they compare in a few particular aspects. Particularly for those of you that have used both, are they about equal, or which is better in terms of the following:
1. Overall image quality / sharpness
2. Autofocus speed
3. Noise (not as important, but worth considering)

BTW, this is to go on a Rebel XT and would be my only lens (I'll probably add a Canon 50mm f1.8 also). TIA,
--Kyle

Kyle,

I have both (and both seem to be good copies) and I believe 28-75 delivers overall slightly better image quality (sharpness, contrast, color), not by much though. I'm not a pixel peeper, so I can't quantify the difference.

AF speed and noise are about the same, even if there's a difference it's very minimal.

Despite better 28-75 mage quality, 24-135 stays on the camera most of the time, primarily due to a very convenient zoom range, especially exta 4 mm on the wide end. 28mm with crop factor is just not wide enough for many situations. 28-75 goes on for low light indoors and portraits.
So if this will be your only lens - I suggest 24-135. Get a good flash too!
Happy shooting!

Kyle Yamnitz said:

I've been considering these two lenses based on specs,
recommendations, and how they'd suit my needs, but I've been
wondering how they compare in a few particular aspects.
Particularly for those of you that have used both, are they about
equal, or which is better in terms of the following:
1. Overall image quality / sharpness
2. Autofocus speed
3. Noise (not as important, but worth considering)

BTW, this is to go on a Rebel XT and would be my only lens (I'll
probably add a Canon 50mm f1.8 also). TIA,
--Kyle

Click to expand...

Kyle Yamnitz said:

I've been considering these two lenses based on specs,
recommendations, and how they'd suit my needs, but I've been
wondering how they compare in a few particular aspects.
Particularly for those of you that have used both, are they about
equal, or which is better in terms of the following:
1. Overall image quality / sharpness
2. Autofocus speed
3. Noise (not as important, but worth considering)

BTW, this is to go on a Rebel XT and would be my only lens (I'll
probably add a Canon 50mm f1.8 also). TIA,
--Kyle

Click to expand...

According to the survey in the below link, there is quite a lot of difference.

http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylenstxt.jsp?filter=%22brand=%27Canon%20EF%27%20OR%20brand=%27Sigma%20AF%27%20OR%20brand=%27Tamron%20AF%27%20or%20brand=%27Tokina%20AF%27%20or%20brand=%27Vivitar%20AF%27%22

--
Vernon...

Vernon D Rainwater said:

Kyle Yamnitz said:

I've been considering these two lenses based on specs,
recommendations, and how they'd suit my needs, but I've been
wondering how they compare in a few particular aspects.
Particularly for those of you that have used both, are they about
equal, or which is better in terms of the following:
1. Overall image quality / sharpness
2. Autofocus speed
3. Noise (not as important, but worth considering)

BTW, this is to go on a Rebel XT and would be my only lens (I'll
probably add a Canon 50mm f1.8 also). TIA,
--Kyle

Click to expand...

According to the survey in the below link, there is quite a lot of
difference.

http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylenstxt.jsp?filter=%22brand=%27Canon%20EF%27%20OR%20brand=%27Sigma%20AF%27%20OR%20brand=%27Tamron%20AF%27%20or%20brand=%27Tokina%20AF%27%20or%20brand=%27Vivitar%20AF%27%22

Click to expand...

I've pretty much given up looking at that site The results often seem to be well out of step with my own experience and that of others (and reviews).

I second the notion that the Photozone survey numbers are near worthless. Don't match reality or the tests.
--
Ken W
Rebel XT, DSC-S85, and a whole lot of 35mm and 4x5 sitting in the closet...

Thankyou both for your replies and comments:

I have no basis to either agree or disagree regarding the referenced site, however; the link I referred to appears to be an overall summary based on actual users as indicated by the number of participants for each lens (at the right) -- which is (actually) not a lens test -- instead, it appears to be opinions of performance from many users.

Of course, if a test is made (by one person) for a specific lens or comparing one or more lens, then there obviously will be a chance of the ONE lens of each type NOT being of a normal quality for the lens as well as regardless when we all try to be objective, since we are human, then (sometimes) the individual "bias" comes into the conclusions.

I believe that the best we can all do is to try to review and evaluate (as you both evidently have) and try to get all we can (that seems to be factual) and make our choice(s) especially if we don't have the opportunity to actually test the specific lens we are considering buying.
--
My Regards, Vernon...

Todd

you won't have the f2.8 low light abilities like the shorter 24-75lens.

But I like it for a walk around lens, and use it for macro at about 100mm. I also have the 17-85IS, and enjoy both, although I need more than 85mm sometimes.

Betting the quality is better for the 24-75, but try to decide what type longer zoom will be accompaning it eventually. For instance, if you get the 24-75, you could later get the 70-300IS, and be set for a long time.

If you get the 24-135mm, you probably will want a low light lens like the 50mm1.8, plus a long zoom, eventually.

--



http://netgarden.smugmug.com/
DSC V1 Sony, Mavica FD88, Fuji s5000, Canon 20D