Tamron 28-75 (f2.8) vs. Canon 24-85 (3.5-4.5)

happyham · 12th May 2005

Newbie here trying to get a grasp of using the 350D and the long lineup of lenses + their $$$ cost. Current holding the 18-55 (std) and the 50 (f1.8)-fantastic little bugger.
However, packing up for a holiday and was hoping to bring just one or two lenses (light ones).
Looked up the previous threads and saw the above mentioned 2 models to fit my budget.
Any comments on them?
Thanks.

happyham · 12th May 2005

oh yah, also have the sigma 28-105 but find the lens slow and noisy. Focusing in low light also seems to be a problem.

Denosha · 12th May 2005

I have the Tamron 28-75 (F2.8) and for the $$$ it's a good buy IMO. It's light and compact compared to other similar lenses. Sharpness is very good although slightly soft wide open. Contrast and colour are ok, definately not L-quality. Bokeh is pretty nice. AF is pretty silent and relatively quick for a non-USM lens. The short minimum focusing distance comes in handy too.

Splutter · 12th May 2005

Definitely the tamron one. Sharpness at tele end can almost match the 24-70 of Canon. Just softer at the wide end. Constant F2.8 is a great advantage too!

happyham · 12th May 2005

ooh yes the power of the big F... shows on my 50 mm (f1.8) compared to the standrad lens. photos come out much more crisp.

mpenza · 12th May 2005

but it might not be wide enough though. you could also consider getting a travel lens like the Tamron 18-200 or Sigma 18-125.

happyham · 13th May 2005

tamron 18-200 seems like a flexible one, whts the retail price ?

drumma · 13th May 2005

i vote for the tamron lens. it's a good lens and i'm very happy with it!

haagen_dazs · 13th May 2005

frankly
i would recommend the tokina 28-70 f2.8
one solid beautiful lens
really
just do some review checks on it =)

holeinone · 13th May 2005

The Tamron is a great lens delivering good overall performance. You can fault it for the price. To get a similar coverage with L lens (24-70) will set you back abt 4x the price.

It may not be wide enough for landscapes but for general shooting, it performs great.

Russ · 13th May 2005

I have the 24-85 EF and it is not a bad lens at all, with a slightly larger range at both ends as the Tamron, but you do lose some apeture. From what I hear and read the Tamron is sharper and a better lens. But the 24-85 probably has better QC and more consistency and is cheaper new or 2nd hand.

I think new is about 550 and 2nd hand 300-400.

It is also reasonably compact.

If I don't already have the Canon 24-85 which I bought 2nd hand, I would probably get the Tamron.

LFC · 13th May 2005

Hmm... I'm also looking at this two lenses. 4mm difference in the wide end is a lot with x1.6 crop.

Anyone would like to comment on the wide end of the lens? That is if 28mm suitable for x1.6 crop?

Thanks!

holeinone · 13th May 2005

It's suitable. I am using it on my 10D. Brilliant lens for the price.

You may not get very wide coverage at 18mm with the 1.6 crop but to me, it's still alright, depending on what you intend to capture. You can get a separate ultra wide for landscapes if you can spare the cash

Russ · 13th May 2005

Reason I went for the 24-85 is precisely that 24 is much more usable than 28. If you a lot of indoor work or require something closer to 38mm (film equivalent) than 45 mm (film equivalent).

But now I have a 17-40L for that and no longer need the 24 end so much !!

My answer is therefore:
1. It depends on what you shoot
2. It depends on what other lenses you plan to have.

Snowcrash · 13th May 2005

Both are good for the film SLR.

As for DSLR, I find sigma 18-125 good for those who like all in one lens.
Or even canon 17-85 USM IS.

The new 18-200 not sure how good is it.

I prefer prime like my 35/f2. Light and fast for my travel use (Of course if your trip is solely photography, you can bring all kind of lens

)

mpenza · 13th May 2005

I loved the fast focussing of the 24-85. Found that it could focus better than the 35/2 or 50/1.8 under low light (pub's lighting) on the 300D!

Halfmoon · 13th May 2005

Originally Posted by mpenza

I loved the fast focussing of the 24-85. Found that it could focus better than the 35/2 or 50/1.8 under low light (pub's lighting) on the 300D!

Canon EF 24-85mm?????

Mmmm..... interesting.....

Snowcrash · 14th May 2005

Originally Posted by mpenza

I loved the fast focussing of the 24-85. Found that it could focus better than the 35/2 or 50/1.8 under low light (pub's lighting) on the 300D!

1) fast becos it's USM?

2) What to you mean by "focus better" ?

mpenza · 14th May 2005

Originally Posted by Snowcrash

1) fast becos it's USM?

2) What to you mean by "focus better" ?

1) yup. it focus faster than the 28-135 IS and faster than the 70-200 F4L I think.

2) it could achieve focus when 35/2 and 50/1.8 can't lock focus (both just cycle back and forth without achieving focus).

budiman · 14th May 2005

Definitely Tamron. It's sharp and delivers excellent colors/contrast. The constant wide aperture of Tamron lens is also very useful.
For indoor group shots, 28mm is wide enough for me, I never have to step back or anything.

12th May 2005	#1
happyham Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 196	Tamron 28-75 (f2.8) vs. Canon 24-85 (3.5-4.5) Newbie here trying to get a grasp of using the 350D and the long lineup of lenses + their $$$ cost. Current holding the 18-55 (std) and the 50 (f1.8)-fantastic little bugger. However, packing up for a holiday and was hoping to bring just one or two lenses (light ones). Looked up the previous threads and saw the above mentioned 2 models to fit my budget. Any comments on them? Thanks.

12th May 2005	#4
Splutter Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Gim Boon Tai Posts: 2,819	Definitely the tamron one. Sharpness at tele end can almost match the 24-70 of Canon. Just softer at the wide end. Constant F2.8 is a great advantage too! __________________ If you understand my works, it's photography. If you don't, it's art. SplutterPhotography\|flickr

13th May 2005	#8
drumma Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,823	i vote for the tamron lens. it's a good lens and i'm very happy with it! __________________ weddings . Blog

13th May 2005	#10
holeinone Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Tampines Posts: 1,316	The Tamron is a great lens delivering good overall performance. You can fault it for the price. To get a similar coverage with L lens (24-70) will set you back abt 4x the price. It may not be wide enough for landscapes but for general shooting, it performs great. __________________ There is no life without fast cars....

13th May 2005	#13
holeinone Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Tampines Posts: 1,316	It's suitable. I am using it on my 10D. Brilliant lens for the price. You may not get very wide coverage at 18mm with the 1.6 crop but to me, it's still alright, depending on what you intend to capture. You can get a separate ultra wide for landscapes if you can spare the cash __________________ There is no life without fast cars....

12th May 2005	#3
Denosha Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Bukit Timah Posts: 1,298	I have the Tamron 28-75 (F2.8) and for the $$$ it's a good buy IMO. It's light and compact compared to other similar lenses. Sharpness is very good although slightly soft wide open. Contrast and colour are ok, definately not L-quality. Bokeh is pretty nice. AF is pretty silent and relatively quick for a non-USM lens. The short minimum focusing distance comes in handy too.

12th May 2005	#6
mpenza Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New York City Posts: 13,397	but it might not be wide enough though. you could also consider getting a travel lens like the Tamron 18-200 or Sigma 18-125.

13th May 2005	#9
haagen_dazs Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: New YorkNew JerseyBoston Posts: 1,074	frankly i would recommend the tokina 28-70 f2.8 one solid beautiful lens really just do some review checks on it =)

13th May 2005	#11
Russ Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Pasir Ris Posts: 1,613	I have the 24-85 EF and it is not a bad lens at all, with a slightly larger range at both ends as the Tamron, but you do lose some apeture. From what I hear and read the Tamron is sharper and a better lens. But the 24-85 probably has better QC and more consistency and is cheaper new or 2nd hand. I think new is about 550 and 2nd hand 300-400. It is also reasonably compact. If I don't already have the Canon 24-85 which I bought 2nd hand, I would probably get the Tamron.

13th May 2005	#12
LFC Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 471	Hmm... I'm also looking at this two lenses. 4mm difference in the wide end is a lot with x1.6 crop. Anyone would like to comment on the wide end of the lens? That is if 28mm suitable for x1.6 crop? Thanks!

13th May 2005	#15
Snowcrash Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Western SG Posts: 1,507	Both are good for the film SLR. As for DSLR, I find sigma 18-125 good for those who like all in one lens. Or even canon 17-85 USM IS. The new 18-200 not sure how good is it. I prefer prime like my 35/f2. Light and fast for my travel use (Of course if your trip is solely photography, you can bring all kind of lens )

14th May 2005	#20
budiman Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 190	Definitely Tamron. It's sharp and delivers excellent colors/contrast. The constant wide aperture of Tamron lens is also very useful. For indoor group shots, 28mm is wide enough for me, I never have to step back or anything.