24-70mm Focal Length Options...

[authoritee]

<p>I've been reading the reviews at the-digital-picture.com for these lenses in order to see which one is the better option in a quality/price relation:</p>

<p><strong>Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM</strong><br>

<strong>Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 EX DG</strong><br>

<strong>Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG</strong><br>

<strong>Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD</strong></p>

<p>I have no doubt that Canon's L lens has a s<em>uperior build and has an impressive image quality</em>, but it's a bit expensive at $1,200 dollars. I've read about the Sigma one's being <em>average, with a fast but noisy AF, and with a lousy flare problem</em> open-wide. About the Tamron one, I've read that it has an <em>Image Quality very similar to Canon's</em>, but that it does not apply to every lens (so it's a gamble), and have also read that the <em>AF is very loud and somewhat slow</em>. The prices for the Tamron and Sigma versions are much cheaper than Canon's, all of them under half the price.</p>

<p><strong>Now, can anyone that has had first-hand experience with these lenses confirm all of that which I've read? What's your opinion on what's best, economically talking? Is the Tamron really that good?</strong></p>

<p>Right now, I'm inclined towards the Tamron since I read it has an Image Quality almost equal to Canon, but I'm finding it hard to believe when there's a $700 dollars difference between these two lenses...</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

<p>I have two copies of the Tamron 28-75/2.8. The older one is great, the newer one seems to be less sharp. Oops. AF is hideously slow and noisy on both. The old one is very nice, but I've abused it horribly over the 5 or 6 years I've had it and decided it was time to replace it. I need to take the new one to Tamron and yell at them.</p>

<p>Note that Sigma makes _two_ 24-70/2.8 lenses. One (the older, cheaper one) is called a "Macro" lens (although it's nowhere near being a macro lens), and the new one is called "HSM". Sigma _claims_ that the HSM one is the definitive 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. It's cheaper, more compact, slightly lighter, but uses a larger filter than the Canon 24-70/2.8. I haven't seen a review yet.</p>

 

[colin carron]

<p>I have tried the Tamron 28-75 (didn;t focus correctly on my Canon body) but where it decided to focus was very nice and sharp. Many users find them ideal as they are smaller and lighter than the Canon though build quality is not so good as the Canon.</p>

<p>The Sigma 24-70 was a good lens, almost indistinguishable in sharpness from my current Canon 28-70 (earlier version of the Canon 24-70). It was a good lens let down a bit by its large size, strange filter thread (82mm) and noisy AF. I was reasonably happy with it and I think 'average' as a description is a not doing it justice. Mine was a good lens.</p>

<p>I swapped it for the canon 28-70. This is marginally sharper than the Sigma though you have to look quite carefully to see the difference. The Canon has a better filter size (77mm) but is extraordinarily heavy. It always surprises me just how heavy it is. However it balances well on my 5D and is a pleasure to use.</p>

<p>My suggestion would be to go for a Tamron sourced from somewhere you know will take returns. If it is not satisfactory go for either the Sigma 24-70 or the Canon depending on your pocket.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>I have both, one I bought intentionally the 24-70 L, the other (Sigma) came with a camera that I bought used, a 1D. The 24-70L is worth in weight in gold during low light, has never failed to focus quickly, can not say that about the Sigma.</p>

[ben_goren]

<p>Haven’t tried the others, but I’m happy with my Tamron 28-75. I don’t use it much, as

I’m a bag o’ primes guy, but I keep it on the body in place of a body cap so the camera

is ready to grab ’n’ go should I need it. I had a lot of fun with it shooting the dance at a cousin’s wedding (strictly unofficially).</p>

 

<p>I think your main consideration should be the kind of shooting you do. If I were a wedding

photographer, I wouldn’t even think twice — I’d get the Canon. But, as I wrote, it

suits my purposes just fine — quite well, actually — and the money saved was better

spent elsewhere.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I think a lot depends on what you intend to use it for. I always feel that posts such as this should be put into a category of either working photographer or casual photographer. If I was shooting weddings, The 24-70 would be a no brainer but for casual or general use the Tamron or other options would do just fine.</p>

<p>I owned the Tamron and I used it as my primary lens for a few years, even for some events. It has very good optical quality and a very good lens for the money. The autofocus is a bit buzzy and its a it will hunt on occasion, but its not bad by any means just not as good as the Canon ( which is what one would expect ) I tried the Canon 24-70 but I found it to big for my use, which is mostly travel, family, walk around. I ended up going with a 24-105 and I use non L primes when I want a fast lens.<br /> <br /> If your not on a full frame body you may want to consider the Tamron 17-50 2.8 which is also a fine lens.</p>

[fjp]

<p>I have both Sigmas.</p>

<p>I used the old Sigma 24-70 DG macro on a crop sensor camera (400D) and my copy was just fantastic.<br>

But then I upgraded to a 5D2 and I started to notice It was a little soft on the full frame corners.</p>

<p>Recently I purchased the new 24-70 DG IF HSM and I like it a lot.</p>

<p>After performing focus micro-adjustment, the only problem I have detected until now<br>

is some vignetting at the extreme corners at 24mm when focusing at near subjects - but I think it doesn't happen on all pictures.<br>

It doesn't happen at other FL (28mm and higher) and I still didn't check if the problem is related<br>

to UV filter or lens-hood.</p>

 

[KenPapai]

<p>I quit buying 3rd party lenses years ago (almost 5 years ago, when I started buying the L glass). None of these is the equal of the 24-70 2.8L. Not at all.</p>

<p>Usability! Fast focus. Totally integrated with the Canon system. I don't think I need to type another 6-7 sentences to defend the easy, logical choice.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>If would skip the two sigmas because of the image quality and the loud AF. You might think that is not a big issue but if you are at a wedding, museum or funeral the noise wil surelyl raise allot of eyebrows beleive me. The Tamron is not a bad choice but is it only aboout 300 dollars cheaper than the Canon.<br>

If you purchase a used model the price drops signifantly to about half of the Canon lens. I don't know if that is a good thing. Something to think about if you want your lenses to keep their resale value. However, if you want a small fast and portable lens for travel, I would opt for the Tamron.<br>

The Canon 24-70mm is definately a two-hand lens. If you don't have the wrist of an athlete, this lens can become heavy very fast unless you hold the camera with one hand and support the lens with the other. Tack on a B&H UV 77mm filter like most people do, will just make matters worse. </p>

[paddler4]

<p>The only one I have is the Tamron. It's a very nice lens, sharp as a tack if closed down even a stop, and not bad wide open. The focus is a tad noisy, but I have not had problems with accuracy. I tested for back and front focus as well, and it is fine. My reasoning was that it cost 1/3 the price of the L and is lighter. I figured I could get a lot of other gear I want for the difference in price. build quality is adequate.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>Re: the Sigma noise, the Sigma "HSM" lenses have "hyper-sonic motors". That's Sigma's version of USM, and it works well. I have two and they're almost as quiet as my Canon ring USM lenses.</p>

[authoritee]

<p>So, overall, all things I've read are basically correct? Think I'll go with them Tamron after all; there's some of you putting down the Sigma, and some defending it, but the Tamron has not been badmouthed at all. Canon is just a bit too heavy indeed, i'm looking for something more practical.</p>

<p>And Tommy, thanks for recommending me the 17-50, but I'd rather buy a lens that fits all cameras rather than an APS-C built lens. Also, I'm not into weddings, I take classic/fashion portraits and event photos.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

[tdigi]

<p>No problem, I tried the 17-50 and it was very nice too so just wanted to make sure you knew of it. </p>

<p>As to the 28-75, It's a very nice lens, and I did the same thing, I was very much against non-full frame lenses but I eventually did break down and get a Canon 10-22 which was a great lens that I actually miss. I don't really like to lug around huge lenses unless I really want the shot so there is something to be said for a manageable size. I believe the tamron is even smaller then the 24-105. </p>

<p> </p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<blockquote>

<p>I quit buying 3rd party lenses years ago (almost 5 years ago, when I started buying the L glass). None of these is the equal of the 24-70 2.8L. Not at all.<br />Usability! Fast focus. Totally integrated with the Canon system. I don't think I need to type another 6-7 sentences to defend the easy, logical choice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No offense, but this statement is just wrong! I own several Canon L-series lens including the Canon 85 1.2L, 17-40 F4L and my favorite lens for both my Canon 30D and now Canon 5D Mark II is the now famous Tamron 28-75 F2.8 DI.<br />I rented the Canon 24-70 F2.8 just to compare it to the Tamron 28-75. Yes, the Canon is better. Better for me because it has full time manual focus whereas the Tamron I have to hit a switch to manual focus. Yes it's controls are also smoother and it is built better. However, the Tamron has excellent image quality ( maybe slightly sharper than the Canon), is way lighter, way cheaper, focuses fine and is a true F2.8 lens, Oh and . The Tamron kills the Canon 24-105 F4L IS and is comparable to the Canon 24-70.<br />If you have the money get the Canon 24-70 F2.8L if you don't or not shooting professionally you can still compete in any photography arena with a Tamron 28-75 F2.8 Di.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Anonymous "minute" dude, we're all entitled to our informed opinions; I could easily say you are "just wrong" too, but I won't. In fact, you even refute the "wrong" stuff in your own informative post. Relax OK? Thanks.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I disagree that it kills the 24-105, both have advantages and disadvantages. The 24-105 is superior mechanically, has USM, IS, is wider and longer and a better build. I also found it produced better color. The Tamron is a good because its a nice lightweight 2.8 midrange zoom at a very affordable price.</p>

[andreasb]

<p>I love my Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. I've never had any problems with it on either of my 40Ds. I have read about quite a few folks that have had bad samples but I would assume that Tamron would fix or replace those rather quickly. In my book, the lens is well worth the price and I prefer it over the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 because it is much lighter. From my experience with a Canon lens that I borrowed from a friend for a few weeks to try out is that the results between the Canon and the Tamron are indistinguishable. As others have pointed out, the Tamron is louder than the Canon when focusing but that has never bothered me. It is not too loud in my opinion. Both are great lenses, just the Tamron costs less than half as much as the Canon.<br>

Good luck!</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>Whow! I was refereing to the comment Not at all equal... The original post was about Qualty/Price relation IMOP the Tamron quality at it's price point is beyond being equal to the Canon it is far superior for the $$. To me the Canon is not neccesarrily the easy logical choice if you don't have $1200 to spend. The original poster was saying he found it hard to belive the lens could be near equal in IQ when their was a $700 difference. I am confirming it does have an almost equal if not superior IQ. I wish to upgrade to the Canon L-series for reasons besides image quality. I like it because I am vain and I think the L lens looks better on my 5D2 and because I can afford it now! That is not by any means saying I could get the same work done with the Tamron.<br>

When I first got started and only had a Canon Digital Rebel the Tamron was the best lens I had ever owned. I made more money with that lens than any of my L-series lenses which have yet to actually pay for themselves. <br>

Sorry if I pissed anyone off but look for yourself and please someone tell me where this is not equal to what an L-series lens can do.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>Ken Papai - I love your work, you definetly have skills. We took almost exactly the same shot while at the Bellagio in Las Vegas.<br>

Tamron vs Canon L You decide.<br>

<a href="../photo/3558345">http://www.photo.net/photo/3558345</a></p><div></div>

[KenPapai]

<p>That Bellagio art ceiling BEGS to be captured. The prints are excellent oo.<br>

(I shot mine with the 16-35 ! ;-) (it was 115F in the shade outside)</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Same pieces as the art above:</p><div></div>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>Hello Forum<br>

Just filed for divorce, because my wife says she likes Ken Papai's photo better than mine :-(.<br>

Off topic, but Ken I like how you do your framing, title and copyright, gives photos a much more professional look. I have learned a few things about presentation looking through your portfolio. Excellent work. I used 580 EX flash on my photo which I now wish I had not. Since I have upgraded to 5D2 I haven't used flash once. <br>

PS - was having a really bad day at work the other day so please excuse my insensitiviIty.</p>

<p> </p>

[KenPapai]

<p>It's ALL good. I think everyone who posts smart, capable photos to PN should do at least a minimum amount of framing -- at least a 2-4 pixel wide black frame.... at the very least.</p>

<p>I've posted 100's of photos to my Facebook (max size there is 604 pixels) -- every, solid, single one of them is framed. Do it today... no matter the 24-70 lens you've chosen.</p>

<p>(my way of thinking, one or two years later when the initial 'cost shock' has settled down you will NEVER regret buying the L glass... however, if you are a Canon-phile, and you are, all of you, you will always regret not having the 2.8L if you go 3rd or 4th party)</p>

<p> </p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I guess 4th party would be a used 3rd party lens, which has little value. <br>

If I had it to do all over again and new I was going to stick with photography as I have I would have started with all F2.8 or faster L-series lenses. In the long run this would have saved me money because I wouldn't have all these 3rd party lenses to get rid of. My first L-series lens I purchased was the 17-40 F4L which was greeat on my 30D when I was a flash user. However, now since I have upgraded to 5D2 I don't like flash as much and have really learned to appreiciate F2.8 or faster glass. Although, there are excellent 3rd party lenses out there ultimately I would never regret having an L-series F 2.8 lens. It really comes down to what you can afford.<br>

shots from Canon 17-40 F4L extreme zoom</p><div></div>