Reading mode: Light Dark

tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 vs canon 24-70mm f/2.8L and 5D

Go to last post
H

hatschmidtdp

New member
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Location
London, UK
Hello

I was thinking of getting canon's EF 24-70mm f/2.8L for a 5D but was intrigued by this comparison with the Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR posted here: http://lubowphotography.com/tamron-canon-test.htm

The conclusion from this would be to go for tamron instead of canon if IQ is what you're after.

Has anoyone else compared the two lenses on a FF camera? Any other comments most welcome too, of course!

Thanks, Harald

PS

Apologies if this should have been covered in the forum earlier - the search function seems to be down at the moment and i only browsed through the last couple of weeks to check.
 
I'd take the Canon any day over the Tamron. The Tamron isn't a slouch though.

Center sharpness is about the same. The Canon vignettes a little less wide open on the wide end (full frame.) The Canon smokes the Tamron on edge & corner sharpness. The Canon is built like a tank. The Canon will autofocus better in low light and a little faster.

On a crop body, I doubt you could tell the images apart.
--
Visit me at

http://www.have-camera-will-travel.com/
 
On my 5D, the Canon AF is quieter and perhaps a little faster. In low light I have never really had a problem with the Tamron because of the 580EX and the infrared beams it emits (I wish canon would include that on the body like Nikon :( ). My experience with the Canon lens was only for a weekend and in studio so I can not comment on how it performs in lower light. I can say I the canon beat the tamron below f/4. Above f/4 you would be hard pressed to tell a difference, The Tamron performs slightly better though.

As for feel. The Canon Lens is heavier and gives you the feeling that its built better. Although the Tamron is no slouch when it comes to build quality either, it does not feel like a plastic toy, it feels very solid, but the Canon feels like it has body armor.

Bottom line, both will get the job done and done well. If you feel the extra weight and slightly better IQ wide open is worth the extra 800 or so dollars then grab the Canon.

--
-Greg

http://www.gregknapp.net/
Equipment in Profile

Geek:
There are 10 types of people in this world.
Those who understand binary and those that dont.
 
ive used the 28-75 by tamron and the 28-70L by canon, wide open the tamron doesnt even come close to the level of sharpness from the canon. The tamron focused poorly , albeit sharp when it hit . All and all it was a good lens.

FYI your 24-70 looks real poor if im looking at the right pictures, none of the shots appear in focus.
 
I have used both, but bought the Tamron over the Canon ONLY because of price, otherwise I would have bought the canon. The Tamron performs okay, but does not meet the Canon when focusing in low light.... hunts way more.
 
Oh ok .. I read it wrong then I thought you looked at my galleries and found soft photos. I have some soft photos to be honest but mainly because of me not the lens or the camera. I set my AF to the rear button because I shoot alot in low light and may take several photos before shanging focus. That prevents focus hunts when shooting subjects at or near the same distance.

Here is a shot taken with the Tamron at f/4 and 1/80th of a second in available light, handheld. Is has been PP'd for skin retouching.



--
-Greg

http://www.gregknapp.net/
Equipment in Profile

Geek:
There are 10 types of people in this world.
Those who understand binary and those that dont.
 
PawelWoj said:
ive used the 28-75 by tamron and the 28-70L by canon, wide open the
tamron doesnt even come close to the level of sharpness from the
canon. The tamron focused poorly , albeit sharp when it hit . All
and all it was a good lens.
Click to expand...
The Canon 28-70L is a much better lens then the Canon 24-70L and does beat the Tamron. However, the question was about the Canon 24-70L compared to the Tamron and that comparison is more of a toss-up. It really depends if you luck out and get a good 24-70L.

--
Greg M

2004 Boston Red Sox World Series Champions
Best of all was handing the Yankees the worst defeat in baseball history!
 
I kind of agree with the last post, entirely depends if you get a good copy of the Canon. I own both and my original intention was to buy the Canon and then sell the Tamron but I found that even after returning the Canon twice to find a decent copy the Tamron was still sharper wide open at 2.8. That being said I hardly ever use the Tamron any more, keeping it more for a backup. The Canon is built so much better, the color and contrast are better and the biggest reason is the autofocus. During weddings at the reception the Tamron would hunt and I'd miss shots. The Canon snaps into focus much quicker and seems more accurate overall.
--
Rob
rstrainphotography.com
 
and will keep both. I love the Canon--sharp everywhere, but heavy. I do a lot of climbing and skiing with my camera, the the 24-70 just isn't an option due to its size and weight. Thus, I got a Tamron for that, but I hope I don't have to use it wide open, and it is nowhere near as sharp as the Canon. Seems decent at other apertures, but haven't done a critical comparison (had to ship it back to Tamron to get it adjusted).
 
Used the Tamron 28-75 for just over 3 years now...and I just bought the 24-70 a month ago. I'm shooting on a 30D though...

No comparison...the Canon's is much better.

Better color reproduction
sharper wide open
weather sealed
slightly faster AF

Tamron is lighter and cheaper.

The Tamron is a good lens. It served me well for 3 years...however, the Canon is a great lens and the results are top notch.

If you need to make money with your lens, than the Canon is definitely the way to go.

sean
 
gives good to the Tamron being 1/3 the price. My unit of the Tamron is sharp wide open, but it has rather poor autofocus accuracy in lower light situations where Canon lenses likely do better.
 
If you find a good copy of the Tamron (and they DO wary quite a bit), it will be sharper than the Canon 24-70.

My Tamron consistently beats in sharpness every f/2.8 Canon zoom I put up against it, wide open and stopped down. 24-70, 24-105, 16-35, 17-40, you name it.

Tamron is also smaller, lighter and about 1/3 the price.

Canon has better color and contrast, MUCH better build and MUCH better autofocus, and of course it's a lot wider.
 
The Tamron is a surprisingly sharp lens, with very nice colors.

I do hear a lot about quality variance, I have little complaints as to my own copy. It is actually the only non-canon non-L/prime left in my arsenal.

One warning though, at 2.8f at 28mm, it does suffer from darkened corners, on a full-frame camera like the 5d.
 
hatschmidtdp said:
Hello

I was thinking of getting canon's EF 24-70mm f/2.8L for a 5D but was
intrigued by this comparison with the Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR
posted here: http://lubowphotography.com/tamron-canon-test.htm

The conclusion from this would be to go for tamron instead of canon
if IQ is what you're after.

Has anoyone else compared the two lenses on a FF camera? Any other
comments most welcome too, of course!

Thanks, Harald

PS
Apologies if this should have been covered in the forum earlier - the
search function seems to be down at the moment and i only browsed
through the last couple of weeks to check.
Click to expand...
I've recently tested out the Tamron 28-75 2.8 (of which I've been a happy user for the last 2 years) against the 24-105 4L IS (which I got just today!!!).

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=25417877

Maybe this will help. I was considering the sale of the Tamron, but given the general good characterstics of the lens (as well as low resale value) I will keep it for situations when I need a 2.8 zoom and can live with lower sharpness / resolution.

For me the main issue with 24-70 2.8 L is weight - 900g - certainly the 24-205 at 650g is already a pretty heavy lens for a general zoom.

my 0,02 USD
--
PiotrP
 
I have tried 3 copies of the 24-70 L and sharpness wise, none have come close to my 28-75, especially at the long end.

It is an unbelivable lens for the money.

--



http://www.fotoz.co.uk
 
Maybe interesting for you

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=366&Camera=9&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=101&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=1&APIComp=3

A good comparison for sharpness and resolution.

I have two copies of the 24-70 2.8 L and I'm very happy with the lens. Both are very sharp (sharper than the 24-205 F4 L) and it's my most used lens on my 5D but I have no experience with the tamron

Maybe if someone have focus problems with their 24-70, it is a possibliity to adjust the lens with your 5D by canon in getting accurate focus results and sharp images

Best regards
Markus
 
YellowBullet said:
If you find a good copy of the Tamron (and they DO wary quite a bit),
it will be sharper than the Canon 24-70.

My Tamron consistently beats in sharpness every f/2.8 Canon zoom I
put up against it, wide open and stopped down. 24-70, 24-105, 16-35,
17-40, you name it.

Tamron is also smaller, lighter and about 1/3 the price.

Canon has better color and contrast, MUCH better build and MUCH
better autofocus, and of course it's a lot wider.
Click to expand...
I've ahd the 24-70L since it came out in Dec. 2002 (or at least shipped). I love the lens, use it a lot, but this Spring I added teh 28-75 because the 24-70L is just 'too much lens' to carry for a full day, whether walking or hiking.

I find that on comparison, the 28-75 'sometimes' beats the 24-70L on same subject, same settings on sharpness. The L has better color, contrast, faster AF--but the color and contrast I can deal with in RAW. So--I keep both, though I find I'm using the 28-75 more these days. If I'm on tripod--its the 24-70L and in truth--I'd prefer to shoot with it all the time, but there's a limit to what I will carry for long periods. I've done it for a number of years but there comes a time to try something else (and, I also sometimes carry the 28 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 instead of either).

Diane
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Z
16+28-200 -> sony/canon + UWA (tamron 16-30, 17-50, sony 16-35, canon 14-35, 16-28)
Replies
10
Views
11
zalmanium
Z
T
Sigma 24-35mm f/2.0 vs Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 mkII
2
Replies
32
Views
33
thunder storm
T
R
  • User review User review
Canon RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS STM — A Smart Tradeoff for Travel, Video, and Everyday Use
2
Replies
30
Views
61
alphaZ
A
T
Advantages of the RF 14-35mm f/4.0 L over the RF 16-28mm f/2.8 stm
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
61
Ephemeris
Ephemeris
B
RF 24-105 f/4L vs RF 28-70 f/2.8 STM
Replies
4
Views
116
gipper51
G

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top