Upgrade Tamron 28-75 to which Canon L-series Lens?

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I currently have and use quite heavily the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 Di lens. I shoot with a Canon 5D Mark II. On my Canon 30D I use a Canon 17-40 F4L which I absolutely love. I want to upgrade the Tamron to a L-series lens. However, I am really pulled between the Canon 24-70 F2.8 as a direct upgrade to the Tamron or keep the Tamron for when I need f2.8 and add the Canon 25-105 F4 IS. I currently don't have any IS lenses so that will be new, but I feel I am taking a step backwards from the Tamron F2.8. By the way the only reason I am upgrading the Tamron is it is very bad for video. When you zoom a Canon L-series lens it is silky smooth howver hen you zoom the Tamron lens it zooms in urky jumps. This doesn't matter for photos but is does for video. Also it does not have a full time manual focus override when in auto focus mode. The rubber grip used for zooming and focusing is comming off. It is not part of the design like a Canon L it is like a big rubber band than slips on top of the lens. when it gets old it gets loos and starts to move up and down like a sock. Other than those flaws it takes excellent photos very sharp and light weight. Overall, I have noticed with the 5D2 I have a tendancy not bring my flash with me and it doesn't have a builtin flash which makes me feel more comfortable with the faster glass. Would IS give me the same compfort?</p>

[authoritee]

<p>I had the same problem; I felt really uncomfortable using it for video. I also own the 17-40 f/4, and thats the lens I use for wide angles, and I have a 70-200 f/2.8 IS. My Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 used to overlap both of the other lenses and fill in the gap, but I didn't really like using it (I still have it though, since it does deliver a good image quality for photos). I replaced it with a simple 50 f/1.8, and I haven't used it ever since I bought the <em>plastic fantastic</em>, not for video nor photographs.</p>

<p>It all depends on how much use you give to the 24-75mm range zooms. I, for one, prefer longer focal ranges.</p>

<p>Erwin Marlin</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I don't really have much of a problem witht hte range because i prefer to get as close as possble to the subject. I also own the 50 1.8 but don't realy use it that much as i prefer the range provided by the zooms. I never thought I would ever dislike a lens based on its build qualities but the Tamron just doesn't feel or look right on the Canon 5D2. I am sure I will be happy with either L-Series lens I just want to make the best choice as I have made the wrong choices too many times.</p>

[jimstrutz]

<p>Personally, I would rather use the 24-104 f/4L. Most of the time I prefer the 2+ stops of hand hold ability of IS to 1 stop of lens speed. I would also prefer the longer reach of 105mm. But there are times when subjects are moving that necessitates faster glass. On the other hand, the 5DII has very clean high ISO images, so perhaps you can just turn it up in lieu of packing the f/2.8.</p>

[angel_bocanegra]

<p>Consider that the 24-70 is way heavier and longer than the 24-105L and no IS. Unless you have super steady hands, you will probably have some bad video, specially at the 70mm end. I have no problems with my 24-105L when shooting video, superb footage 100% of the time.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>The IS creates noise, must use an external mike. I have tried the 24-70L and the 70-200L and they both work great on my 7D, have not tried the 24-105, however. If I get a chance, I will try it as I need to find out how much noise it creates, I do not have an external mike, which one needs anyhow if one wants stero sound. Minimum is a monopod with video, much harder to handhold a DSLR and lens then a point and shoot. I do very well with my G-9, not so with the DSLR, have to look at the screen so you have the camera away from you and it weights quite a bit more.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I went from a Tamron 28-75 to a Canon 24-105. I do miss the extra stop sometimes but on a 5D2 its not much of an issue. Where the Canon excels in mechanically, full time manual focus is very useful for video. Smooth quiet autofocus, easy to use focus and zoom rings. etc. If you have a 17-40 you know this, its very similar.</p>

<p>As to performance I do get better color with the Canon. I also like the extra reach and wide angle and the IS can be a big help with video. The 24-70 is also a great lens, I got to try out out I just did not feel the 1 stop made up for the extra weight and less range. </p>

<p>As to flash, I use mine a lot less too but there are times where even with a prime you need light. I picked up a 270Ex for my small setup and its pretty decent when I want to go light. </p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>There's heaps of past threads on 24-70/2.8 vs 24-105/4 IS.</p>

<p>FWIW. There's some speculation that Canon is working on a 24-70/2.8 IS. One option would be to sit tight for now and wait to see if this happens. Again, this is a rumor and who knows if this is for real or just on somebody's wish list.</p>

<p><em>Overall, I have noticed with the 5D2 I have a tendancy not bring my flash with me and it doesn't have a builtin flash which makes me feel more comfortable with the faster glass. Would IS give me the same compfort?</em><br>

First of all: IS, large aperture, high iso, and flash are four completely different things. In real-life shooting one does not substitute for the other. If you need to fill shadows then larger aperture or IS won't help, you need flash. If you want selective focus then IS or flash won't do it, you need large aperture. All four complement one another.</p>

 

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I have been reading reviews on this all night. You are right there are plenty but there are just as many people who like both lenses. I am very interested in the longer reach of the 24-105 and IS. However, I am looking for the most versitile lens and although the 24-70 is heavier and shorter I feel for me it is more versitile. I am thinking of when I may need to shoot indoor sports like Vollyball or Basketball. Really, like the 24-105 but it seems to have more flaws (distortion and Vignetting). I think I am going to play it safe and go with the old tried and tested 24-70 F2.8 and sell the Tamron all together. I have a Sigma 70-200 F2.8 which I will one day upgrade to the Canon 24-700 F2.8 IS but that lens is still ok for now. My reason as If I could only take one lens on a shoot and I had a choice between the Canon 17-40 F4L vs the Tamron 28-75 F2.8, I would almost always choose the Tamron because of the F2.8. I just as someone said feel more liberated with an F2.8 lens as I know as the sun goes down etc. I will still be able to focus and get good shots.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>They are both good lenses and both offer advantages and disadvantages and if you read reports and reviews your head will spin but it sounds like a 24-70 is right for you. </p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I've never rented a lens before, but for $35 or so I can try before I buy. It's $70 bucks i could spend towards the lens, but this saves me from wasting $1000+ on the wrong lens (for me). Money is tight customers are hard to find a far apart and the Tamron does work. Problem is, I 've been shooting long enough now that I have certain expectations from my equipment, when I was getting started I didn't know the differences. Point blank I got spoiled by that 17-40 F4L 0n my 30D. Then I was a flash shooter, with 5D2 I prefer natual light and fast glass, which is a BIG price jump from 17-40.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Well if you want fast then the 24-70mm should be your choice. I have to say I am not sure you will find the zooming action on that much different from the Tamron. Of course, zooming while shooting tends to become a tiring effect after only a short while, so I am not sure this should be a serious consideration when considering which lens to buy for video. The 24-70 is very heavy.</p>