Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Tamron 24-135 vs Canon 28-135

  1. #1

    Default Tamron 24-135 vs Canon 28-135

    Tamron 24-135 vs Canon 28-135

    I need help on this...

    Anyone using one of the above lens... which one is sharper?
    I understand that Canon costed more... but izzit worth to get if for the USM and IS?

    I'm thinking of covering the gap between my kit lens and my sigma 70-300mm lens... I'm thinking of using it to do events...


  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    912

    Default

    I used the tamron lens before. I love it as a walkabout lens. The contrast and sharpness are def better than the EF28-105. The 24mm is valuable for indoor shots...

    Personally, I don't think there is a need to fill in the gap....

  3. #3

    Default

    No one using the tamron lens?

    In another thread, i oso mentioned that... i bring my camera around quite often... if there is opportunity I can go and snap snap... without carrying too much lens with me...

    So thinking of using it often when i go around...
    Last edited by rayz; 28th November 2004 at 09:56 PM.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by leadwe
    I used the tamron lens before. I love it as a walkabout lens. The contrast and sharpness are def better than the EF28-105. The 24mm is valuable for indoor shots...

    Personally, I don't think there is a need to fill in the gap....
    Hi leadwe... thks for sharing your opinion... on this lens...

  5. #5
    Moderator nightwolf75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    really MORE diaper changes
    Posts
    17,839
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    i had the 28-135mm b4. nice walkabout lens. i used this lens almost exclusively during the recent photo marathon. just sold it off to a colleague at work to finance another lens.

    thing abt this lens is dat, unless u got a flash, its not really dat suitable for indoors/bad lighting situation due to the relatively slow f-stop. u can get ard it by bumping up ur ISO to above 400, tho u have to live with the noise. also, the IS will drain ur batts, but excessively fast. u have to remember to switch off the IS motor when not in use as it will continue to use ur batt's pwr on the motor even if u switch off ur cam.

    image is sharp and nice colour renditions, but of course dun compare with L-lens lah. if u're looking for a 1-lens-rules-them-all, this is the one to get. perfect if u wanna go on a holiday and dun wish to carry ur dry cabinet with u.
    If Life worked on auto mode then manual mode for photography would have never existed. ― Deeksha Mittal

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    1,356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rayz
    Tamron 24-135 vs Canon 28-135

    I need help on this...

    Anyone using one of the above lens... which one is sharper?
    I understand that Canon costed more... but izzit worth to get if for the USM and IS?

    I'm thinking of covering the gap between my kit lens and my sigma 70-300mm lens... I'm thinking of using it to do events...

    I recently enquired the price of the tamron. It's abt $680. The Canon 28-135 will definitely cost more than this.

    I was trying to bid for the Tamron myself on CS but was outbidded. I am still on a lookou for a mid range zoom that's useful for walkabout.

    My advice to you is not too look for something that will fill the gap between your kit lens and the 70-300. Just ditch the kit lens altogether and get something like the sigma 18-125. I have not used it myself but the images look good. See here. http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/1...5-56_dc_if_asp

    The sigma costs abt $500 new.
    There is no life without fast cars....

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by holeinone
    I recently enquired the price of the tamron. It's abt $680. The Canon 28-135 will definitely cost more than this.

    I was trying to bid for the Tamron myself on CS but was outbidded. I am still on a lookou for a mid range zoom that's useful for walkabout.

    My advice to you is not too look for something that will fill the gap between your kit lens and the 70-300. Just ditch the kit lens altogether and get something like the sigma 18-125. I have not used it myself but the images look good. See here. http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/1...5-56_dc_if_asp

    The sigma costs abt $500 new.
    Hi Holeinone...

    Thanks for you recommendation... the pics looked good... but I wasn't sure I should get sigma again... coz of the bulit. The 70-300mm sigma lens has quite a weird way for me to turn the zooming... so I'm unsure on the sigma... I need to go and try out the 18-125mm lens first...

    Thanks again...

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Central Area
    Posts
    565

    Default

    I'm using tamron as my walkabout lens
    serving me very good
    no regret selling away my 28-105

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by locksley
    I'm using tamron as my walkabout lens
    serving me very good
    no regret selling away my 28-105
    hi locksley...

    How's the pic quality and sharpness on the pics?
    Please share...

    Any pics to share wif me?

    thanks

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Western SG
    Posts
    1,537

    Default

    get the canon efs 17-85 is lens and keep your kit lens at home.

    So + your 70-300 sigma you have a very good range covered by 2 lens.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowcrash
    get the canon efs 17-85 is lens and keep your kit lens at home.

    So + your 70-300 sigma you have a very good range covered by 2 lens.
    Having a EF-S 17-85 will mean that i can buy a 2nd hand L lens...

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Western SG
    Posts
    1,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rayz
    Having a EF-S 17-85 will mean that i can buy a 2nd hand L lens...
    then get the sigma 18-125 as a walk about lor....

    L lens can be heavy for some (physical weight + on the pocket)

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rayz
    Tamron 24-135 vs Canon 28-135

    I need help on this...

    Anyone using one of the above lens... which one is sharper?
    I understand that Canon costed more... but izzit worth to get if for the USM and IS?

    I'm thinking of covering the gap between my kit lens and my sigma 70-300mm lens... I'm thinking of using it to do events...

    28-135 is a very good lens, and the IS really help! The only problem that I have is that the range is not wide enuff, sold it to get 17-40 and never turned back .. well miss the IS though as it help me took a lot of low light shot without tripod ...

  14. #14

    Default

    I don't have the EF 28-135 IS, so I can't comment on that. What I can comment, though, is the Tamron 24-135 that I own.

    It's a nice little package, solidly built, and the only complain others (not me) have is the stiff zoom ring. On a film SLR the colour and constrast is good enough for me, and it's pretty sharp for my standard.

    However, even at 24mm it's not wide enough for a DSLR to be call wide angle. If you're looking for coverage rather than quality I think you should stick to your kit lens.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Central Area
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rayz
    hi locksley...

    How's the pic quality and sharpness on the pics?
    Please share...

    Any pics to share wif me?

    thanks
    I bought the lens from leadwe
    i would said it is a very good walkabout lens with the large range of zoom

    Pic quality and sharpness is better than my 28-105

    sorry I dun have any pic to share
    as i'm using film now ... haven't scan in my negative

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •