Tamron 28-75 DI F2.8 good enough for Canon 5D Mark II?

[model mayhem gallery]

Currently on my Canon 30D my favorite lens is my Canon 17-40 F4L. However, I plan on getting the new Canon 5D

Mark II which will make the 17-40 too wide. Will my Tamron 28-75 F2.8 work equally as well as the 17-40 F4L on

the 5D Mark II or should I expect to upgrade to the Canon 24-70 F2.8 to match perfomance I love in the 17-40?

 

Things I like about 17-40 over Tamron 28-75 are.

 

1. Full time manual focus overide. Tamron has a auto \ manual switch.

2. Canon has internal zoom. Does not move in and out when zooming. However, I am aware the 34-70 also moves.

3. Colors are more saturated on 17-40 L the Tamron is very sharp but doesnt have the bright colors of the Canon L.

4. Build quality the Tamrom slams bottom and clunks when you zoom out and back in. Feels wiggly compared to

solid feel of 17-40.

 

I upgraded my Canon 18-55 kit lens to the 17-40 F4L and saw a huge difference all around. Will I see a simular

upgrade from Tamron 28-75 to Canon 24-70 L?

[mohammed_abidally]

I too use a tammy 28-75 with my 30D and it is wickedly sharp. Suggest you see this comparison which may have some relevance to you - http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/481304 howver we really need to test the lens out on the 21mp body to see if it delivers.

[robert_edelman1]

It might depend upon how good your Tamron copy is. I have a good copy that produces good images and has proven itself to be durable and reliable. Mine works well on my 5D, but of course who knows how well it will work on the Mk.II. Yes, images produced with the 17-40 have that wonderful "L" look to them. And the Tamron obviously is not as rugged as the L lenses, but it is more rugged that you would suspect (it surely is more rugged than the EF 50 mm f1.4, an optically excellent lens that is somewhat fragile). Another thing to consider is that you will be able to correct optical distortions and light falloff (vignetting) in Canon's DPP if you use a Canon EF lens with the MarkII. Canon L lenses also tend to keep their value. The advantages of the Tamron are that it has a lower price, it is smaller with a less conspicuous size, and its lower weight. It looks as if the Mk.II will be sold as a kit with the 24-105 f 4 L, with that lens adding around $800. That might be another way to go. If you are unsure, take photos using your own CF card with the Tamron mounted on a demo or a friend's MkII when it becomes available. You will then be able to do your own "pixel peeping" to determine how the performance of the lens holds up to the new sensor.

[model mayhem gallery]

I was looking to get the Canon 5d M2 with the kit 24-105L. However, Since I already have the Tamron 28-75 I don't think the 24-105 F4 or the 24-70 F2.8 will add much. I already have an 85 1.2 and a 50 1.8 I think I would rather pick up a 35 MM L prime or a 100MM macro lens since I don't have any macro lenses yet.

[model mayhem gallery]

I agree the Tamron is not a BAD lens at all. I really wish it had full time manual focus overide. I think $800 is a good price for the Canon 24-105 IS which would be my first IS lens and would make a good replacement for my 17-40 on a FF camera. But, I think I will get the Camera body and see what it does with my existing lenses. I am not missing anything I have Canon 17-40L, Tamron 28-75 and Sigma 70-200 so I should be ok as long as these lenses work well at 21MP

[aimzoom]

When I bought my first 5D I was switching ffrom Nikon, budget dictated that I bought the Tamron to cover the middle range as I also bought the 16-35 L and the 70-200 L, I wanted f2.8 throughout but saved some $$ buying the Tamron. A few months and dollars later, with my second 5D I bought the "kit" including the 24-105 f4.0 IS L.

 

Before long I had settled into a pattern: the 24-105 was always on the one camera along with my strobe/Lightsphere setup; between IS, slightly wider angle and a bit more reach, it was the workhorse and still is. That's the camera setup I want in my hands for announcements, toasts, bouquet, garter, cake, and the first few must-have shots of the official dances. The other camera gets the rotating lenses, which now include a Lensbaby 3G and a 50mm f1.8 - and, sometimes, the Tamron, sometimes with a fisheye adapter. The picture quality of the Tamron is good, close to the 24-105, but without IS that 2.8 is mostly needed for bokeh, not low light. It is "clunkier" than the Canon, noisier, not as fast focusing...and when I rearranged my primary case I left it out.

 

Were I to do it again I'd have started out with the 24-105 and made up the difference by getting the 17-40 f4.0.More often than not my 16-35 is rarely used wide open, and if I could afford only one lens it would be the 24-105. I know some love the 24-70 and someday I might rent one just to see if I'd use it enough, but for now, I'm happy with my current array.

[model mayhem gallery]

Thanks Brent

 

Would you consider the Canon 24-105 an upgrade in terms of image qualtiy over the Tamron or is it the range you like better? Also is the Canon F4.0 with IS better at low light situations over the Tamron F2.8?

[anders_carlsson]

Even though it might not resolve every single pixel under peeping, it is still a very good lens indeed. I made a 8.5x11 print yesterday, showing an urban scene with numerous harsh contrast edges, shot at 28mm @ f/4, and everything is razor sharp, edge to edge, with no CAs whatsoever. I am sometimes sad I no longer have it.

[dotun famakinwa]

Check out the images captured by Michael Brisbane using the 28-75 on a 20D and I think 40D

 

http://www.photo.net/photos/michaelhills