3rd party lens substitute for EF 24-70 f2.8 L

[sigrd]

Is there any 3rd party lens that come marginally close to the Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 L lens???

Has anybody tried and did any comparisions? Seriously torn between budget and desire haha....

 

[dkw]

I had a very good copy of the Tamron 28-75XR Di, optically very very close to a 28-70L that I owned for a while. It does have a warm cast compared to Canon 'L's, and of course, no USM. If you are on a budget, I would highly recommend this lens.

Cheers,

 

[Denosha]

I have the same Tamron lens as well. It's a tad soft wide open but stop down to about F4.0 and it's tack sharp. Even without USM it still AFs quite fast and silently altho it sometimes hunts on my 300D in low light situations. Very good buy for the money IMO.

 

[jeff49er]

I heard of praises of the Sigma 24-70 costing $700. For the price u can get quality pic but dont expect AF to be fast.

Really do u need the L lens?

 

[clive]

sigma 24-70/2.8 will do. its sharp n affordable.



just some notes: the one thing i think is stupid about the 28-70L and 24-70L is that both extend when zoom out to the wide end. which is rubbishy build quality. :thumbsd: ;( i dont understand why canon cannot make it non-extending like the tokina 28-80/2.8. even the AFS 28-70/2.8 also extend when zooming. maybe i not that good at engineering or its that they can design it to be non-extending but it will take up too much space or what...hehe. when i was using film i had no choice but to use the 28-70L due to the need for the 28-70mm focal length. now with digital and the godsend 1.6x crop, the choice naturally shifts to 17-40L or 17-35L or 16-35L. all of which are physically smaller and lighter and non-extending (read: much better build quality) than the 28-70L and 24-70L. and somemore the 70-200L can now hit 300mm

[mmm scarly 3 years later they come up with EF 20-70mm f/2.8 L USM IS which is non-extending and still retains the 77mm filter size !!! :bsmilie: ]

 

[metals99]

sigma 24-70/2.8 will do. its sharp n affordable.



just some notes: the one thing i think is stupid about the 28-70L and 24-70L is that both extend when zoom out to the wide end. which is rubbishy build quality. :thumbsd: ;( i dont understand why canon cannot make it non-extending like the tokina 28-80/2.8. even the AFS 28-70/2.8 also extend when zooming. maybe i not that good at engineering or its that they can design it to be non-extending but it will take up too much space or what...hehe. when i was using film i had no choice but to use the 28-70L due to the need for the 28-70mm focal length. now with digital and the godsend 1.6x crop, the choice naturally shifts to 17-40L or 17-35L or 16-35L. all of which are physically smaller and lighter and non-extending (read: much better build quality) than the 28-70L and 24-70L. and somemore the 70-200L can now hit 300mm

[mmm scarly 3 years later they come up with EF 20-70mm f/2.8 L USM IS which is non-extending and still retains the 77mm filter size !!! :bsmilie: ]

yeah i agree.. with u 100% but i was thinking maybe is it of the L lens mechanism or maybe there is something more special that they would not mae it that way it should be canon should have known..

 

[dkw]

sigma 24-70/2.8 will do. its sharp n affordable.



just some notes: the one thing i think is stupid about the 28-70L and 24-70L is that both extend when zoom out to the wide end. which is rubbishy build quality.i dont understand why canon cannot make it non-extending like the tokina 28-80/2.8. even the AFS 28-70/2.8 also extend when zooming. maybe i not that good at engineering or its that they can design it to be non-extending but it will take up too much space or what...hehe. when i was using film i had no choice but to use the 28-70L due to the need for the 28-70mm focal length. now with digital and the godsend 1.6x crop, the choice naturally shifts to 17-40L or 17-35L or 16-35L. all of which are physically smaller and lighter and non-extending (read: much better build quality) than the 28-70L and 24-70L. and somemore the 70-200L can now hit 300mm

[mmm scarly 3 years later they come up with EF 20-70mm f/2.8 L USM IS which is non-extending and still retains the 77mm filter size !!! :bsmilie: ]

Hmmm,
the glass elements have to move when zooming and focussing, whether its internal or external is really quite immaterial to me, as long as they don't rotate. Probably if Canon made the 24-70 internal zooming it would be the size of the 70-200 (same 2.8x zoom factor). Btw, the front element of the 17-40L DOES move forwards and backwards during zooming, you just don't notice it 'coz the filter ring stays in place. If you want to weather seal the 17-40 you need to stick on a filter. As for being lighter, don't forget the 24-70 is f2.8, 17-40 is f4. Having owned all the above lenses I wouldn't call the 24/28-70 'rubbishy'.....

As for the Sigma, I've had that too , not bad but I liked the feel of the Tamron better (at least my copy).

Have a nice day.

 

[AlvicTay]

I had a very good copy of the Tamron 28-75XR Di, optically very very close to a 28-70L that I owned for a while. It does have a warm cast compared to Canon 'L's, and of course, no USM. If you are on a budget, I would highly recommend this lens.

Cheers,

Hi dkw

May i know the price of Tamron 28-75XR Di?


Cheers

 

[sriram]

The only reason I would get an f/2.8 zoom is so that I can shoot at f/2.8. If I have to stop down I may as well shoot with my old 28-105/3.5-4.5USM. I've tried and used around 5 Tokina and Sigma f/2.8 zooms in this range and none of them are sharp at f/2.8. I didn't see any point in spending big bucks on a fat heavy zoom if I can't shoot at f/2.8, so I got the older (discontinued) 28-70/2.8L. Expensive, but worth every cent and works great at every aperture right from f/2.8, which is not something I can say about the Sigmas and Tokinas.

 

[sigrd]

Thank you all for the comments and recommendations. Still considering my options here and might very well purchase a 17-40L first and the 24-70L later when the $$$ situation is a tad better.