too many 24/28-70s!

Hi folks,

I'm looking at f/2.8 zooms that go from 24 or 28mm to 60-80mm, for use with a 20D.

The Tamron 28-75 seems to get high marks from many sources. What's up with this

Sigma 24-60? I can't find any reviews that place it in context among the other

competitors. The other Sigmas in this range don't score so high on the photozone

lens survey. And is the survey wrong, or are there really four different Tokina 28-70mm

lenses, some of them with f/2.6-f/2.8 variable minimum aperture?! Adorama only has

one-- and this is another contender, actually.

 

Is there any really good way to find out how these lenses compare, or am I deluding

myself?

You have overlooked the Canon 24-70/2.8...... Just kidding.

 

 

Seriously, you yourself said that "The Tamron 28-75 seems to get high marks from many sources". While I have not used it myself, I read and see the same thing. That raises the simple question: Why not simply go for it?

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

Because of lack of FTM, focus ring that rotates externally while the lens focuses, focusing noise...

If you've been using the tamron 28-75, once you try a 24/28-70L USM, you will be hooked. You will want to sell / fling out the tamron. The fast USM, full time manual focus, non rotating front element, etc make it a really luscious lens.

To the best of my knowledge the Tamron 28-75/2.8 has a non rotating front element as well. And while I agree that USM is a VERY nice feature, I don't think that the huge price and weight difference are worth it. This is where it gets to personal preferences.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

i am in love with this tamron lens. canon is too heavy, after an hour or two of shooting my hand just gives up. i didn't notice any difference in optical quality between tamron and canon, maybe is exists when you're shooting wide open a newspaper from across the backyard...and yes, front element doesn't rotate. sigma i tried, it sucked badly, got back to the dealer. ymmv.

Yakim - the front element does not rotate, correct. The focusing ring does.

I.ve had 2 Tamrons, like the Sigmas they have a quality control issue. The first one was soft, the second one was very soft. I'm going for the third tonight and it its bad, I'll send it in. I've heard if you get a good one, they are great. Tamron told me they are a bit finicky on digital bodies. My highspeed is down and I'm on dial up now, so I cant post my comparison with the two copies I got. Here's a link to my previous post.

 

Mark

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Bdxy

28-135 IS or Sigma 24-70 2.8 by Jake Hurst (2005-03-27)

 

This started out as a question about the 28-135 but ended up with much info from

owners of the Sigma 24-70 2.8 and Tamron 28-75.

 

Good Luck.

this is not going to help you make your selection, but why not the Canon 17-85 IS EFS lens ? It is made to go with the 20D, has IS, gives you a bit more at each end of the zoom. A good all round lens, not great mind you. When I want to travel light this is the only lens I take with my 20D.

> why not the Canon 17-85 IS EFS lens?

 

Far too slow. Yes, the IS helps, but not when the subject moves. And IS won't throw a

background out of focus. Thanks for the suggestion anyway.

Yakim -- why not just go for the Tamron? Because going down to 24mm would be nice, if

the Sigma 24-60 is any good, for example.

 

Vincent -- yes, that's what I'm afraid of. I won't even look through L glass, to avoid

temptation.

 

Jake -- I checked out your thread. Thanks for pointing me to it. People seem to like the

Sigmas, more than I would've expected. No mention of the 24-60 though. I asked about

it.

I'm a fairly serious amatuer, own the tamron, have tested both sigma 24-60 and the new sigma 24-70 macro in a store and examined on my computer later. I've also read a fair amount of commments here and at www.dpreview.com. I'm persuaded that either the tamron or new sigma 24-70 are optically very very very good; the sigma 24-60 is not as sharp. My own testing and reading indicates both the tamron and new sigma 24-70 are quite sharp. I found the tamron a touch sharper (but just a touch -- looking at sample shots of the sigma by others has led me to conclude that my experience was probably due to the particular lenses and conditions than any real difference) and a little more contrasty, which is why I bought it. The sigma seems to have a sturdier build and has 24mm (on the other hand, the extra 5mm on the tamron can come in handy; question of what your use will be). I've used the Tamron for basketball action with good results; my canon 85/1.8 usm is faster, but the tamron did surprisingly well in accuracy and the speed was decent. The sigma is a little more expensive and requires larger, more expensive filters. I don't think you can go wrong with either. Given the optical quality of these lenses, I would not spend 3x the amount for a Canon unless I really NEEDED its USM an the sturdiest lens available. The Tamron has been on my camera for everyday use for three months, not a problem to speak of, despite a build that feels a little flimsy to me. The 6 year warranty is comfort enough for any anxiety.

Two more points -- you can check out the last photo i uploaded, of a cat, to see optical quality of the tamron (hand held, shot is about a 40% crop of the original). Also, if my memory is correct, there is a review of the sigma 24-60 by practical photography.

Is the Sigma 24-70 that Adorama and B&H are selling for $409 the "new" one? B&H calls it

"Macro", Adorama doesn't, but they both show its max. magnification as 1:3.9, which is

not really macro. Is this *not* the same lens that scored so poorly on the photozone lens

survey?

My understanding is that the new Sigma 24-70 is designated "macro."

. . . you are right, probably not a true macro. check out dpreview.com for comments on the new lens. i was impressed with what people had to say and show about it.

I am in the process of testing a bunch of standard zooms; see my pbase site for more info. I really like the new Sigma 24-70 EX DG Macro; here is my link: http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/2470

 

My Tamron 28-75 is a nice piece too but the build, AF speed, and externally rotating focus ring has bothered me. Maybe because I've used some of the finer EX and L lenses. But for the money, it is a good piece of glass. The Sigma 24-70 EX is fantastic. See my site for more info. Hope it all works out for you, Ben.

Thanks everybody.

 

I went for the Tamron for its weight and price. If I hadn't cared about weight, it would

have been the Sigma, and if I hadn't cared about price, it would have been the Canon.

 

I noticed today that a photo.netter is selling one of those oddball Tokina f/2.6-f/2.8s at

what looks like a good price (I haven't seen it for sale anywhere else so it's hard to

compare), but by then I was back from the store with lens in hand.

 

Hate to sound like a broken record, but Jojo, you aren't testing the Sigma 24-60 along

with the others, are you? If you are, do you have anything to say about it? I remain

curious about that lens.

 

Again, many thanks to everyone for your generous sharing of information.

Ben, sorry the 24-60 isn't in my test. I chose these 7 and that was my limit. I couldn't include any Tokina lenses either. Hope this is still useful...

 

http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/shootout

 

More to come, including flare resistance test, bokeh, etc. Stay tuned...

my sense from reading reviews, including at www.photographyreview.com, is that the tokina lenses in this focal length, while good, are not on par with the tamron. i had an old tokina 28-70/2.8 before the tamron. it was good at f.4 and above, but soft at 2.8. my tamron is very good at f.4 and above, and much sharper than the tokina at 2.8.

Those multiple versions of the tokina lenses are hard to keep track of aren't they?! It seems sigma is now pulling a similar trick by releasing many similar type lenses.

 

<P>I have heard some talk about the sigma 24-60 on another site.There's a guy there that will be posting some results soon i think.Interestingly he mentioned that the 24-60 is better than 24-70.<BR>I'll see if i can find out more

Thanks, Ron. Looking forward to hearing what you find out.