Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 or Canon 24-70mm F/2.8 L


Status
Not open for further replies.

chootx

New Member
Jan 26, 2009
39
0
0
Jurong West
#1
Hi all,

I'm a newbie. I just got my Canon 50D about a month ago. Currently, I am using the 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6 IS lens. I want a better general purpose zoom lens as my only lens that will keep me happy until I improve further. I'm looking for a lens with F/2.8 or better. My budget is aout $1K although I don't mind paying for the 24-70 mm if it's really worth it but I probably need to save for some time first.

I like taking landscape/architecture and portrait photos. The price of the Canon 24-70 is quite steep plus I am still a newbie so I don't know how much good the Canon lens can do for me. Then there is the Tamron 28-75 which is similar to the Canon 24-70 and Cathay Photo quoted me $600. That's like 1/3 the price of the Canon lens. Honestly, it's quite tempting to buy the Tamron.

How much difference is there between the two apart from weight and feel? Which is easier to use? Any compatibility problems (Tamron and Canon?) Most importantly, what about the image quality?

Appreciate any advice I can get. Thanks.
 

Last edited:
Apr 19, 2007
288
0
16
Alexandra
#2
I used the T 28-75 on a 30D and was very pleased with it. Bought a Tamron 17-50 with my 40D and sold the 28-75.

I recommend either the 17-50 or the 28-75 and saving the extra $$$ for another lens.
 

bEnd1ck

Senior Member
May 10, 2008
2,199
2
0
behind the viewfinder
www.flickr.com
#4
The 24-70L is better built, weather sealed, quieter and faster AF, slightly better IQ. Its heavier, but feels balanced with 50D body + grip.
I've used both lenses on my 50D. The 24-70L is definitely better. But dun expect 3 times better given the price. Not even 30% better I would say. Depends how much you willing to spend. But bear in mind that using either of the above, you lose the wide angle which you might need for landscape. To cover your needs, you might want to consider :

1) Canon 17-55 + (50 F1.4 or 85 F1.8) for the price of a 24-70L
2) Tamron 17-50 + (50 F1.4 or 85 F1.8) for just slightly above your budget.
 

chootx

New Member
Jan 26, 2009
39
0
0
Jurong West
#5
I've read that at different focal lengths, the Tamron is sharper and at others the Canon is sharper. I think I would go for the cheaper Tamron despite the noisier and slower AF since the Canon is not much better. My budget is a big factor. It is noisy (saw a video on youtube)... but I think I can bear with it..=). What's the difference between the Tamron 17-50mm and the extra 25 mm on the 28-75mm? I read that the magnification factor on the 17-50 is 0.22x and the magnification factor on the 28-75mm is 0.25x. I could be asking a stupid question (if I am pls forgive me I wanna be sure) but I suppose this extra 0.03x is from the extra 25 mm on the 28-75mm? The 17-50 + (50 or 85) sounds like a good idea too. How much is the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8? What if I want to take close-ups at the zoo like for example just the face of the tiger at the white tiger exhibit. I think most of the people here have been to the zoo so u got a rough idea how far away I'm standing...like 30-35m. Can the 85/1.8 do that?
 

mfbatzap

New Member
Jan 24, 2007
363
0
0
Tampines
#6
you could consider Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS but it's a lil out of your budget..
 

coolin

New Member
Sep 1, 2008
400
0
0
27
Pasir Ris
#7
if you want to take landscapes , i'd suggest the tamron 17-50 instead.
magnification is due to focal length and the closest focusing distance.
and to take a closeup of a tiger's face , you would need a very very long focal length. probably more than 200mm which will be expensive.
 

bEnd1ck

Senior Member
May 10, 2008
2,199
2
0
behind the viewfinder
www.flickr.com
#8
Coolin's right, closeup face shot of the white tiger, need 300-400mm. I tried 200mm + 1.4TC = 280mm, not close enough.
If you use 85mm and the tiger's face fill up the frame, you are in danger. It'll reach you in one pounce. hehe.;)
 

Apr 19, 2007
288
0
16
Alexandra
#10
One more idea: keep your kit lens and use it for the 18-xx range. i beleive that the weakness of this lens is at the longer focal length? Then the Tamron 28-75 gives you the extra length and better quality...

oh and when yo uhave good light (and can select a faster shutter speed) remember to turn off IS
 

godzilla60

New Member
Nov 25, 2005
1,105
0
0
North
#11
haha ok..thanks all for the advice =)
er...if it is not too late, i suggest a try on sigma 24-70 F2.8 HSM.

I have a non-HSM version and frankly, it is not bad. :) furthermore, my friend has a canon mount non-HSM version and it never left his 40D since....haha

i read somewhere that the review of the sigma 24-70 is a bit better than the canon 24-70 but am not too sure. will advise you to go to a shop that allows u to try your choices before you decide. :)

have fun choosing....frankly i love the 24-70 F2.8...:thumbsup:
 

chootx

New Member
Jan 26, 2009
39
0
0
Jurong West
#12
ha!...i was thinking of Tamron 17-50 or 28-75, veering toward 17-50 already.....so u say the Sigma 24-70 is good too??? so many options.......but 17 mm is good for landscape right...better than 24 or 28
 

bEnd1ck

Senior Member
May 10, 2008
2,199
2
0
behind the viewfinder
www.flickr.com
#13
It depends on your shooting style.
At times, I find even 17mm on cropped sensor not wide enough. Wished I had a 10-22mm or something. To some, maybe 24 is good enough. :dunno:
 

Sep 28, 2008
896
0
0
33
#14
It depends on your shooting style.
At times, I find even 17mm on cropped sensor not wide enough. Wished I had a 10-22mm or something. To some, maybe 24 is good enough. :dunno:
definatley tokinda 12-24 for landscape !! my favourite lens!!
 

#15
you know how some people are very "attached" and possessive of their lenses / equipments? that was how i felt over my tamron 28-75. it was such a precious piece of glass, although i had it 2nd hand from the bns section but ive read a LOTT of reviews on it, saying that it's almost just as good as the canon's 24-70L but a lot less cheaper. (i use "was" because my senior photographer suggested that i have to get a wider lens to cover for weddings/engagements. i had to sell it to fund for the next lens)

you should get it especially if you love to shoot potraits :thumbsup:
 

Last edited:

Snowcrash

New Member
Jan 18, 2002
1,537
0
0
Western SG
Visit site
#18
so 17-50 or 28-75? im in a dilemma
Zoom lens is not necessary unless you are shooting events and need a 1size fits all kit.

I suppose is use your 18-55 and see which range you use the most often. Than get that lens that fit your purpose.
Eg, I use mainly 4 focal length - 17mm, 35, 50 and 70mm as I'm used to these views in my head.

I realize i use the extreme end of my zoom lens and I can make do with fix focal.

E.g. - I usually use the 17mm f2.8 on my tamron 17-35mm 2.8-4 if I want wide.
I use a 35mm f2 for normal use and 50mm f1.8 if i want a 'tele' view.
I also have a tokina 28-70mm f2.8 where usually I use mostly at the 70mm end.

Enjoy shooting with your whatever you have!
 

chootx

New Member
Jan 26, 2009
39
0
0
Jurong West
#19
Ok i got the Tamron 17-50. The IQ is good, AF in low light not so good but I kinda expected it. When I take photos in low light (e.g. yellow lighting in a room) the tone was darker than the ones I took with 18-55 f/3.5-5.6, sometimes 'strange' also. I tried some shots in the kitchen with fluorescent lighting..turned out better. Normally what is the shutter speed used in low light at f/2.8? For me, the jury is still out on this lens. Need to experiment further and take daytime shots... everywhere.... and... I need to work tomr. If not I can go out shooting
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom