Canon 28-135 IS or Tamron 28-75MM

[maxheadroom]

... been 1 week liao....
Me still can't deicde which lens to get.

2 more weeks and it going to be my bro wedding......

Any suggestion?

[Vulpix0r]

If it's a F2.8 Tamron 28-75 you are getting, then seriously, get that. The IS won't help much in super low light, and trust me, the lights are not that good. The 28-135mm is too slow of a lens under such low light to capture motion.

[karwing]

Originally Posted by maxheadroom ... been 1 week liao.... Me still can't deicde which lens to get. 2 more weeks and it going to be my bro wedding...... Any suggestion?

Here's a review of the Tamron, there's also some results of comparision with the 18-135.

[maxheadroom]

..??? huh where?

[karwing]

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...ron_28_75.html

duh... forgot the link.

[frostyIntrepid]

hmm, latest prices on Tamron?

[nightwolf75]

Originally Posted by frostyIntrepid hmm, latest prices on Tamron?

$500+, the last time i asked CP. i ended up buying the tokina 28-70mm/f2.8 lens instead.

actually, buying whichever lens depends on wat is ur shooting style. if u are more of a generalist who tends towards outdoors, the 28-135 IS USM lens is a good all-in-one lens. yeah. its a tad slow for indoors. but, with IS and a high ISO (400 and above), u can take reasonably usable pics. the noise can be removed using software.

the 28-135mm is also a good travel lens. i prefer this over the sigma 18-125mm becos the 18-125mm cannot be used on a film SLR without vignetting. the sigma lens is made for DSLR. i've got a SLR cam, so must buy lenses dat can be used on both kinds of cam. the IS is a useful feature to have. even for outdoors, as it allows u to shoot at a slower shutter without handshakes (based on the 1/focal length guideline). so, if u wanna take those waterfall shots without a tripod, the IS is the way to go.

however, if u tend towards taking more low-light, non-flash shot, the tamron is a good buy becos of the constant f2.8 aperature across all focal length. its downside, of course, is its shorter range. oh yeah, dun get confused with all the talk abt crop factor. it doesn't increase the focal length of ur lens but it changes the FOV (field of vision). to read up on this, try search in CS or go to http://www.luminous-landscape.com for an excellent article explaining this. so, if u wanna use it on a holiday, u might find urself carrying more lenses.

bottom line - buy according to ur shooting requirements.

[DaNi3L]

Originally Posted by nightwolf75 $500+, the last time i asked CP.

Went CP on Wed. $650 with GST.
Still a mighty good price, considering if u ever need to resell, it'll go for $500+.

[rainman]

One of the very impt factor to consider : AF speed. Choose a lens that hunts less for AF.

Anyway if possible, shoot all with flash...and f-stop is not that critical anymore.

[generik]

Also consider the sigma.. there is one lens that covers this range too. Said to be excellent as well

[hazekang]

Just bought the tamron lens, its realli nice!

[generik]

Some pictures?

[hazekang]

http://hazekang.multiply.com/photos/album/55

[lightning]

Originally Posted by rainman One of the very impt factor to consider : AF speed. Choose a lens that hunts less for AF. Anyway if possible, shoot all with flash...and f-stop is not that critical anymore.

There are some situation where flash is useless.

So my vote is the Tamron lens. With F/2.8 throught out is a neat feature. You may not need the IS, especially for wedding photos. I do take lots of wedding shots in church, and I realised a fast lens is really important. There are stiuation where flash is not encouraged.

[plinius]

hi nightwolf,

can share why you chose the tokina over the tamron?

Thanks in advance

Cheers......

Originally Posted by nightwolf75 $500+, the last time i asked CP. i ended up buying the tokina 28-70mm/f2.8 lens instead.

[nightwolf75]

Originally Posted by plinius hi nightwolf, can share why you chose the tokina over the tamron? Thanks in advance Cheers......

hi, plinius!

well... price for one thing!

the tokina was bought on offer at CP for $399. the tamron is, i believe, still selling close to $600? no brainer, IMO.

dat aside, i prefer the solid construction of tokina over the tamron. yeah, its heavier than the tamron for sure. i also like the internal zooming of tokina over tamron - ie, when the tokina zooms, the front of the lens does not extend out. so, if i wanna put a polarizer on it, the filter won't move. besides, becos it doesn't extend outwards, its also quieter when in use compare to tamron. as lighting pointed out, shooting in church is a no flash no noise environment.

however, the tamron is much sharper than the tokina at f2.8 (but both lose to f2.8L, of course). tamron is a macro lens. or more correctly, a lens with macro functions. ie - the pics tend to be on the sharper side. good and bad, depending on the subject u are shooting. also, the tamron is much lighter to carry ard, and the lens hood is slightly better constructed than the flimsy and fragile-looking tokina lens hood. the AF of tokina is slightly slower compare to tamron. i've tried both b4, and found it so. of course, this is subjective becos i know some other shooters said tamron is slower.

[tOGGY]

Originally Posted by lightning There are some situation where flash is useless. So my vote is the Tamron lens. With F/2.8 throught out is a neat feature. You may not need the IS, especially for wedding photos. I do take lots of wedding shots in church, and I realised a fast lens is really important. There are stiuation where flash is not encouraged.

Just another 2 cents worth. The lens is very sharp and usable at around F5.6 - F 12 . Wide open, it is softer. However the drawback to me is the yellow cast. This yellow warm cast is less pronounce in good lighting condition. But in low light, it is heavy. I try not to use it in this condition because it involves some PS work to normalise it and losing a bit of details.

If I am shooting on a 1.6 body and want zoom, bite the bullet and go for the 2.8L/24-70 (second hand or gray set). Don't know how to explain but comparing $600 and $1900, finicky me still recommend the 2.8L for this range. 24mm is quite a big deal to me too. But must do gym for the neck and hand muscle.
It is quite easy to upgrade from Tamron. Reselling it is no big problem.
My comments will make your decision tougher - but believe me that I am trying to help.

[Vulpix0r]

Originally Posted by tOGGY Just another 2 cents worth. The lens is very sharp and usable at around F5.6 - F 12 . Wide open, it is softer. However the drawback to me is the yellow cast. This yellow warm cast is less pronounce in good lighting condition. But in low light, it is heavy. I try not to use it in this condition because it involves some PS work to normalise it and losing a bit of details. If I am shooting on a 1.6 body and want zoom, bite the bullet and go for the 2.8L/24-70 (second hand or gray set). Don't know how to explain but comparing $600 and $1900, finicky me still recommend the 2.8L for this range. 24mm is quite a big deal to me too. But must do gym for the neck and hand muscle. It is quite easy to upgrade from Tamron. Reselling it is no big problem. My comments will make your decision tougher - but believe me that I am trying to help.

Not everyone can easily afford 1.9k without a saving a lot. Obviously the Canon 24-70/F2.8L is the best choice, but sometimes we have to weigh our needs, specially since I also can't justify purchasing a 1.9k lens which I won't be making money out of.

[generik]

According to some other forums the Tamron holds its own to the f2.8L... no?

[generik]

The Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 EX also said to be quite good