Tamron 28-75 vs Canon 24-70

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by pto189, Apr 29, 2005.

  1. If The Tamron 28-75 is as good as or even better than the Canon 24-
    70, why should we buy the heavy and ridiculously expensive Canon 24-
    70? I think either Tamron can raise their price up to $700 or Canon
    should drop their price down to $700. Optically, How can Tamron make
    a 510g lens that is as good as a 950g lens? I would like to hear
    from you so I will sell my Canon 24-70 and buy back the Tamron 28-75
    that I have sold it last month. Thank you.
     
  2. Well, you have (or have had) both lenses so, you tell us. Which do YOU like better?
     
  3. There is a reason for the price difference. If not optically (which is pointlessly arguable), certainly the Di cannot compete with the L in build quality, AF (ring USM), weathersealing, low light focusing, etc. It's the Sigma 24-70 that should be in the middle of the cost at around $600 IMO. The Tamron delivers nice optics as do the others though.

    www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/lenstests
     
  4. Giampiero, with my newbie skills, they are very close in optical quality. I like Canon better and will keep it forever even in the future, I might try the Sigma 24-70. It is heavy, but I can hold it with ease. As JoJo said, L quality, weathersealing, AF with all time manual focus, and low light focusing are the main reasons I want to keep it. <br><p>
    JoJo: If Sigma raise their price to $600, would you still buy it? Do you think people will buy it? why? I sold Tamron for three reasons: AF, counterclockwise zoom ring, and moving focus ring.
     
  5. Philip, what did you not like about the Tamron's AF?

    I tried it in a shop and besides being non-USM, it did what it should: autofocus! And rather fast i have to add...
     
  6. Philip,
    I have used both lenses on my Canon equipment both film and digital. I have used the Tamron for a good year to help me collect enough money to buy the Canon. Tamron lens is VERY good, I have used it for Weddings. However, its build is not great. If i used to shoot in the windy weather with my digital equipment, I was pretty sure that the sensor was in the major need of cleaning. Ever since I purchased Canon I can tell you that it is worth every penny, as much as Tamron is good, Canon is even better. The colors are superb the sharpness is increadible and the build is superior. If you wish you can check out a sample romantic shoot that I have done recently with that lens. http://www.treasurethemoments.net/jandv

    Best,
    Greg
     
  7. Curious, if you have the Canon, which is the lens the others are trying to compare to, why buy a cheaper lens with the same focal length? Why not take the $400-$500 and get a different focal length, wide or tele?

    Mark
     
  8. Greg, are you saying the mount between your camera and the Tamron was so loose it allowed grit to penetrate to your sensor? Or are you saying that grit could pass through the Tamron lens itself to the sensor? Either one is very difficult to believe.
     
  9. I find that hard to believe to, in fact my cheapo Tamron 28-200 sat rock-solid on my EOS 30 while i can move my 70-200 f4L very very slightly.
     
  10. Teh 24-70L is one of the best lenses I have ever owned. In every way, you get what you pay for.

    But, the other brands are viable alternatives for those with different needs/priorities.
     
  11. Is the Tamron waterproof? Does it have USM? Is it built like a frickin tank?

    Then again, it's nobody here's fault that you don't need those things that the Canon has
    on the Tamron. The advice given here on photo.net is usually free but rarely carries a
    guarantee.
     
  12. If you get a good copy of Tamron 28-75, it rivals the Canon 24-70. Unfortunately the copy to copy variation of the Tamron is far higher than the Canon. I got a good copy in my second exchange, but I know that many others got a good one after many changes, or even never got a good one.
     
  13. I've now seen quite a few comparisons between these two lenses online.
    <P>Only one of those gave the nod to the tamron... the canon in that case was obviously ,blatently a bad example.
    <P>*ALL* other tests have had the tamron allmost as good as the canon or some way behind it
     
  14. If you do a google search you will find that the only person on the entire internet that raves about the Sigma 24-70 is fstopjojo. And he raves about it over and over and over........... Something kinda fishy with this guy. 99.9% of the time what you will see on the internet is people returning the lens because it is a dog. On the other hand if you do a search on google for the Tamron 99.9% of the time people that own the lens rave about its optical quality. Not to mention the enormous amount of sample photos offered for the Tamron at 100% size and not one decent image from the Sigma on the entire internet. There is also not one review from a reputable photographer about the new Sigma 24-70 macro. The few sample photos I have seen from this lens (the newer "macro" version) look identical to the older non-macro version of this lens ie.. awfull.

    I own the Canon 24-70 L very good lens. weight, size and especially the hood make it awkward at times.
     

Share This Page