Santiy check on Tamron 28-75 F2.8 upgrade?

<p>First of all I shoot with a Canon 5D Mark II. I have started and love shooting HD video. I have invested heavily in LED light panels and run 3 - 12X12 panels off Vagabond batteries. Not the whole Vagabon just the batterries :-). However, they are not that powerfull so I started investing in faster primes I now have the Caon 28 1.8, 50 1.8 and 85 1.2L. My main zoom lens when light premits is the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 or the Canon 17-40 F4L. I absoutely love them both, but always wanted to upgrade the Taamron to the 24-70 F2.8L as I hate not having full time manual focus on the Tamron. However, since the Canon 24-70 F2.8L has been out so long I decided to wait until the Mark II version as I did with my 5D Mark II. By the way I tried and hated the 24-105 F4L IS.<br /> So here is my question am I missing anything going forward if I just get a 35 F2.0 and the new Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VR USM? I do love the quality of the L-series lenses, but I can't say my customers can tell a difference between the 17-40 and the 28-75. Yes, I can the colors are different but with Alien skin exposure I can make them look the same. I really want the new 24-70 F2.8 II. I can afford it but can't really justify it as I just don't make that much money from photography. I do take qgreat pride in my work and know I will always do this so don't see this as money wasted.<br /> Maybe ny business isn't growing because I use cheap lens not pro lenses but I don't think so. What would you suggest? My thinking is shoot primarily with the primes which give me the shallow dof I want for video and save on battery power over shooting at F2.8. When I need to get off tripod and run and gun the VR on the Tamron would give a greater advantage than the better optics of the Canon 24-70 II espeacially at video speeds of 1/30 to 1/60 @70mm. Does this make since or am I missing something? <br>

PS -My best lens is probably my least used lens the 85 1.2L, very slow focuing, extremely heavy and I hate the attention it attracts when I use it outdoors. It screams I am expensive come steal me. I wouldn't mind selling this and getting the smaller lighter 85 1.8 as focusing video at 1.2 is way too hard.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My best lens is probably my least used lens the 85 1.2L, very slow focuing, extremely heavy and I hate the attention it attracts when I use it outdoors. It screams I am expensive come steal me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The average reaction I get to large L optics on my 5D2 are more like, "damn that's one freakin' old camera. They don't need to make them that big anymore." So the 85 1.2 is mainly screaming at you. The average icehead thinks it's a throwback to 1979 and worth nothing at pawn.</p>

<p>Why don't you wait until the Tamron 24-70 is actually released, or at least until Tamron provide a date and price. Without a review of the lens it's hard to gaze into a crystal ball and predict whether it will be a competitive alternative to what Canon is offering.</p>

<p>Few people will <em><strong>NEED</strong></em> the Canon 24-70/2.8 II, but that won't stop them wanting one and buying one. If you can live with someone else having a lens that's probably optically better than yours then you can get the Tamron. If it will eat away at you and keep you up at night (which it sounds like it might), fork over the cash to Canon. If you can't bear using the 85/1.2L, there's no point in having your "best lens" safe at home in a glass case. You could sell it and buy the 28-70/2.8 II</p>

<p>Why did you hate the 24-105?</p>

<p>Have you considered renting 24-70L to see if you'll like it or hate it?</p>

<p>As for Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC, we'll have to see how the optics are, once it hits the shelves.</p>

<p>Another option for you would be more primes (like the 35/2 and 85/1.8 you're considering) for studio work, and 28-135 IS for outdoor off-tripod video.</p>

 

<p>I have been bearing the Tamron and making it work for about a year now. I did rent a 24-70 F2.8 and liked it a lot better than my Tamron in the way it "LOOKED" on my 5D2. I liked how silky smooth the focusing and zoom rings were compared to the Tamron which work but are definitely not smooth. But other than how it looks and feels I couldn't not tell much if any difference in actual image quality. <br>

On the other hand, the 24-105 F4L was not nearly as good as the Canon 17-40 F4L between 24 and 40mm. and not as good as my Sigma 70 -200 F2.8 between 70-100mm. I could see very noticeable dark corners at 24 (barrel distortion) and very noticeable bow in the horizon when shooting ocean shots and vertical and horizontal lines line window panes did not stay parallel. I do not see this at all on the Canon 17-40 F4L and minimally on the Tamron so did not see the 24-105 as an upgrade to anything I already have.<br>

I chose to pass on the 24-70 F2.8 because other than it's good looks and feel didn't offer anything worthy of the huge price increase over the Tamron. But, smooth zoom and full time manual focus override make a difference when shooting video and i need to do a smooth zoom in without the lens jumping from point to point awkwardly as the Tamron does. Also, when the lens is in autofocus at F1.8 but locking on the wrong thing having to hit that button on the Tamron to manual focus and forgetting to put it back on autofocus before the scene changes is a huge pain. I have missed import shots because of this and must upgrade the Tamron to something with full time manual focus which the new Tamron has.</p>

 

<p>I wouldn't buy a lens that I had to depend on having full time manual focus in order to get sharp images.</p>

<p>You are a perfectionist. Get the Canon 24-70/2.8L II or you'll never be happy. You'll be broke, but happy.</p>

 

<p>Sell 85/1.2, buy 24-70/2.8 mk2</p>

<p>Of course for <strong>video</strong>, you may see a significant <em>decrease</em> in performance w/ the 24-70/2.8L II over the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC USM. The VC (alone) is <em>likely</em> going to improve the quality of your handheld video far more than any improvement in IQ that the 24-70/2.8L II is going to give. Frankly, unless the Tamron outright sucks, I'll be buying one. The $1k+ difference in price is only icing on the cake.</p>

<p>That said, as nobody has any reviews of either, it's impossible to <em>know</em> how good or bad the two will be in real life - Though I'd say it's very unlikely (at a minimum) that the 24-70/2.8L II is going to be less than stellar (though I'm sure photozone will find something to gripe about ;-) ).</p>

<p>Selling the 85 1.2L and buying 24-70 F2.8 II is starting to sound like the right idea. I bet if I had just got a 24-70 F2.8 I in the first place without buying Tamron first I wouldn't even be having this discussion. I could replace 85 1.2L with the 85 1.8 and be perfectly happy and start standardizing on all Canon zooms and primes.<br>

By the way full time manual focus is not just to get sharp images. It's more like when the bride is walking down the alter and passes in front of bright window in a white dress. The camera will start to hunt to find contrasted object to focus on. You need to be able to immediately grab the lens and quickly focus back on the subject as the groom lifts the veil for the wedding kiss. Missing this money shot because you had to flip a button could mean missing your pay check. Yes, this is one of those things you don't learn until it bites ya a couple times.</p>

<p>I have the 28-75mm and love it for what it is. It has missed focus on me, though, in the dark but it doesn't bother me very much because I don't do work with it professionally. That's obviously not the case with you, and having spot on focusing might trump the lower price on the tamron.</p>

<p>If you end up sticking with the Tamron, here are some possible work arounds:</p>

<ol>

<li>When lighting is bad and you know the Tamron AF will struggle, shoot strictly in manual mode anyways. It will take some practice, but photographers did make do without AF for quite some time. A major effort in practicing manual focus in low light might save you the extra dollars of an upgrade.</li>

<li>For smoothing out the focus for video, there are DIY methods that many people have employed like this one here:</li>

</ol>

<p>http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?234199-my-3-99-solution-for-smooth-zooming-on-a-VG-10<br>

You don't have to use the massive "arm" that that particular guy used, but any lever that can add fine focus adjustments and a longer/greater "moment arm" will likely pay off regardless of which lens you are using to focus with. For further reference, I've seen DIY solutions that are no more than a few inches long because the important part is the ergonomics created by the rigid arm. Since the guy above had a whole rig, it was more useful for him to have an almost foot long arm attached.</p>

<p>Kind of a side thought:<br>

If you're shooting video, it might be in your best interest to get an actual video camera. The 5D has the ergonomics of a still shooter first, and the film aspect is kind of an afterthought. The 7D slightly improved on those ergonomics, but even the 60D and T3i with their swivel screens have better video ergonomics, granted you lose out on the low light capabilities of the 5D. That's just me thinking out loud, though, and you might be just fine with the 5D short of smooth zooming.</p>

<p>You know Andrew this is exactly why I posted here. I would actually much rather just buy a quality Canon HD video camera in the $2200 range than to spend that on a 24-70 F2.8 II or and updated Tamron 24-70. Actually I do all of my video work and most of my still work in manual focus mode anyway. When shooting with primes at 1.8 auto-focus just doesn't work. It will focus on something just not what you expect it to. </p>

<p>I really think I am going to stop fighting with making this 5d2 into a video camera and just go get a real video camera. When I just looked at what types of 2D and even 3D video camera's I can get for the same price as a 24-70 F2.8 II and now my mind has completely changed from putting any more money into this 5D2.</p>

<p>If you hate the "attention" your 85mm lens gets, don't bother with the new 24-70 lens. With that huge hood on and the new filter size at 82mm, it will be much bigger than your 85mm lens</p>

<p>Hello Brian<br /> The size of the 24-70L was also a turn off when compared to how compact and light the Tamron 28-75 is. The lens I really like shooting with is the 28 1.8 which gets horrible reviews but is a very small, sharp fun lens to shoot with. One day I will probably get the 35 F2.0 and just not worry about not having either of the Canon 24-70 I or II.</p>

<p>Here is a sample of the types of video I shoot and why I prefer the primes but think I might like the VR of the new Tamron.<br>

http://patrickwheaton.com/videos/h5182924#h5182924</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The 5DII is a great tool for video if you are willing to invest a lot of time and money in cobbling together a follow-focus rig and an external audio solution (in addition to a fluid head, lighting, and some dollies). AF and shallow DOF video doesn't work, even at the high-end, so if you are serious about video on the 5DII, you need to be looking at a set of old manual focus primes (probably Nikon) as they have the longer focus throw that you need for accurate MF. </p>

<p>Personally, unless you desperately want the shallow DOF, you'd be better off with a real video camera, more lighting equipment, better support, and a better audio set-up. </p>

<p>Thanks Craig<br /> You are the second person who has suggested getting a real video camera. I agree that is a much better investment over a follow-focus rig. Just adding XLR audio controls alone will cost $379 for a Beachtek DXA-5.<br>

<br /> So, I agree this is a better way to spend money - (F1/6, Image Stabilized L-series lens).<br /> http://www.onequality.com/canon-xha1s-hd-professional-3ccd-minidv-camcorder-camera-p-283.html?gclid=CICrqc2Eqa4CFWcbQgodLwToTA<br>

<br /> Than this.. for the same amount?<br /> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/843008-USA/Canon_5175B002_EF_24_70mm_f_2_8L_II.html<br /> Decision made thanks....</p>

<p> </p>