Reading mode: Light Dark

Tamron 28-75 & Canon 24-105: Any side by side?

Go to last post
X

xb70fan

Veteran Member
Messages
1,270
Reaction score
148
Location
Missisauga, Ontario, CA
I told myself I'd treat myself to an L when I moved to FF. I know it isn't an absolute guarantee of quality, as there are bad copies with any lens. Over the past 18 months I've bought only lenses that are FF compatible. I'd say I'm more comfortable shooting with primes, and more in the wide to normal range. That said, sometimes it's nice to have an "all-around" lens on the camera, understanding that any lens is a compromise.

Now that I've made the move to the 5D, my Tamron 18-200 is moot (for APS-C only). I don't plan to travel with both the 5D and XT (unless I'm doing client work).

I have rented both the 24-105L and 24-70L for my XT. I liked the image quality on both (though I couldn't tell the difference between the 24-70 and my 50/1.4). The size and weight of the 24-70 is pretty much a deal breaker for me. I know many posters ahave said they get used to it, but I'm looking for something more compact.

So I'm down to the Tamron 28-75 and Canon 24-105. I've read some good things about the Tamron here and the 18-200 on my XT is quite decent. The one thing that concerns me is the 24-105's bokeh quality, which is important to me. For bokeh I can always pull out one of the primes, but it'd be nice to have it on the zoom, too. Price isn't a real big factor, though the Tamron is half the cost, and it'd free up funds for a 35/1.4L and 135/2L, which are also on my wish list.

BTW - I did try a Sigma 24-70/2.8 on my XT and returned two copies due to back focusing. I considered the Tamron 28-200 and 28-300 but the user ratings on those don't look as good.

Any recos (& especially test shots) welcomed.

--
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Canon 5D / Canon Rebel XT / Nikon CoolPix 4500
EF-S 17-55/3.5 • EF 28/1.8 USM • EF 50/1.4 USM • EF 50/1.8 II • EF 28-105mm/
3.5-4.5 II USM • Tamron 18-200/3.5 • Sigma 20/1.8
 
Wish you could edit these posts ...

I do have a 28-105, but I find it's quality to be "ok", and I don't use it very often.

--
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Canon 5D / Canon Rebel XT / Nikon CoolPix 4500
EF-S 17-55/3.5 • EF 28/1.8 USM • EF 50/1.4 USM • EF 50/1.8 II • EF 28-105mm/
3.5-4.5 II USM • Tamron 18-200/3.5 • Sigma 20/1.8
 
I have that exact combo. (well with a 2 others that I don't really use)

It's the perfect combination! My Tamron is excellent and the same is only expected for the 135L.

The only thing that I might like to do is get a nice wide. I have an adequate Tokina 19-35 but I'd like a little more quality.

--
Nicholas
http://www.msu.edu/~thonnich
-Excuse my spelling/grammar. Yes, English is my first language.
 
Same boat, I have the 28-75 which I use with the XT, results are quite nice,
but I am anxious to see how the Tamron performs on a FF camera.
Real life samples would be very interesting to see.

--
PiotrP
 
I bought both lenses and kept the 24-105mm.

Here's the thing. The tamron was sharper. f/2.8 on the Tamron was equal to f/4 on the Canon. At f/4 the Tamron was noticeably sharper. By f/5.6 they were more or less equivalent. I did careful testing.

But! The extra range (hugely useful), the IS (hugely useful), and the great color of the Canon is unmatchable.

So what can I say? Every time I want to replace the 24-105mm I ask myself, "with what??!". It's a great lens.
--
Nimnar
 
You need to send your Canon 24-105 for calibration. At f4 your Canon should be a lot sharper than tamron at f2.8. I own both Tamron and canon.
 
ninmar - Do you have any side by side test pics with these two lenses?

Unfortunately I can't test either of these in the local shops. They only have the 24-105. The Tamron is "special order".

--
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Canon 5D / Canon Rebel XT / Nikon CoolPix 4500
EF-S 17-55/3.5 • EF 28/1.8 USM • EF 50/1.4 USM • EF 50/1.8 II • EF 28-105mm/
3.5-4.5 II USM • Tamron 18-200/3.5 • Sigma 20/1.8
 
I too have considered replacing my Tamron 28-75 with a Canon 24-105. The extra range would be great.

However... the Tamron performs so well that I'm concerned I won't be as happy with the Canon. Not to mention that the Tamron is so much smaller, lighter and less expensive than the 24-105.

It's a toughie.
 
SoundsGood said:
I too have considered replacing my Tamron 28-75 with a Canon
24-105. The extra range would be great.

However... the Tamron performs so well that I'm concerned I won't
be as happy with the Canon. Not to mention that the Tamron is so
much smaller, lighter and less expensive than the 24-105.

It's a toughie.
Click to expand...
I have the 24-70--and love the lens except for the weight/size (I've had it since the month it came out and use it a lot, though have been shooting with fast primes for personal work for the last year or so mostly). I've just decided to add the 28-75--or at least I will try it. There has been lots of good talk about it here and elsewhere. I don't shoot tele--but can add my 70-200 f/4 or one of my longer primes if I feel I may want the option. I'll keep and use the 24-70L for things other than long days walking/hiking but have spent the last several months trying to decide on something lighter and without the problems of switching a number of times during the day--sometimes often. I've considered the G7, A640 and 400D with a prime--the 28-75 might be the best compromise. I can see why others want the 24-105, but I like f/2.8 and, as I said, rarely use tele lens.

Hope mine is decent, but I will check for any problems immediately. It seems that most of the problems were awhile ago and I hope that B & H has good ones in stock now.

Diane
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries
 
I don't think the performance of the 28-75 tested on that site is typical. I would have returned mine if it looked like that wide open. It is a bit soft on the edges (on the 5D) and a tad soft in the center at 75mm wide open... but not like that.

I don't own a 24-105, but when choosing between these two lenses I think it comes down to the need for a bigger aperture for low light photography/better DOF or for more range in zoom. Otherwise they are fairly comparable except for color (a personal preference, or fixed in raw) and USM.

When I got the 28-75 there was no 24-105L... I think if I did it over the 24-105L might suit my needs a bit better. It just troubles me to spend $1200 on a "snapshot" lens, $400 is definitely a more pleasant number!
 
--
Amin

equipment in profile
 
Not necessarily an "either or", but a "both and" In other words, I would recommend having both the 24-105 and the 28-75.

When I first got the 5D, the Tamron 28-75 was on the body almost all the time. I loved the constant f/2.8 and the lens was super light. After picking up the 28-135 and the 24-105 (to add some versatility to my kit), I decided to keep the 24-105 along with the Tamron 28-75 (selling off the 28-135).

I shoot almost exclusively in manual mode, and having the variable aperture on the 28-135 slowed me down too much. The sharpness of the 24-105 was superior, and I found its color to be more pleasing. The wider 24mm is a definite plus.

Now that I'm been doing more flash and group shots, the 24-105 gets the nod 75% of the time. However, for available light indoor, the f/2.8 is hard to beat. I do notice the drop in focus speed when swithcing between the USM and the non-USM lens. And the Tamron at f/2.8 is a bit soft in my copy. The center is is super sharp though.

The resale of the 28-75 is not that much, so i would say keep it, and simply add the 24-105.
 
I should have states that at f/2.8 the Tamron is soft in the corners, but sharp in the center.
 
I bought the 28-75 shortly after the D60 came out. I was always very happy with it, and found it to be better on that camera than the 28-70/2.8 Canon I was comparing it to.

On the 20D I used it less since the 17-85 was a lot more versatile with its range and IS, and in spite of lower image quality it helped me produce shots I wanted.

When I got the 5D I also got the 24-105, and I couldn't be happier. The range is exactly what I like, and the performance is quite decent. I occasionally still use the 28-75 when I know that its range will be adequate, I don't need IS and the extra stop and lighter weight are important. Mostly, if I need faster lenses, I'll reach for a prime such as the 24/1.4, 35/1.4 etc.

As far as performance is concerned, both are OK. Neither are as good as the best primes, but both are among the better zooms.

They are not really comparable, since their features are quite different. Choosing one or the other based on performance misses that point. You can only really compare them in the focal range of 28 to 75mm, at f/4 and slower, and not using IS. If you intend to use the lenses that way, either would be a good choice.

Henning
 
I find that small aperture zooms wide angle zooms - especially 3.5-5.6 ones - leave much to be desired for creativity with DOF. Not that you can't do it, but it's much easier with a prime lens.
Amin Sabet said:
--
Amin

equipment in profile
Click to expand...
 
I tested them side by side on my 5d a while back and quickly sold the tamron. Hated the ergronomics of it along with the color cast. I must have deleted my test files or I would show them but I thought the 24-205 was superior in every way.
--
D. Robert Franz
http://www.franzfoto.com
Franzfoto Instructional Tours
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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