Tamron is exceptional lens considering it's price. The L has it won on AF speed and build, but IQ wise the Tammy more than holds its own. I tried a L thinking I should update, but the lens was soft at f/2.8 and only cught upto my Tamron at f/4. Unacceptable IMO.
This is all well and good, when shooting stairs etc. Doubt many of us would be willing
to part with our "inferior" 24-70 L's when the subject turns to portraits and the oh so
fine bokeh we've come to expect. Then there's that 'pop' that's hard to put a price tag on.
trenchmonkey wrote:
This is all well and good, when shooting stairs etc. Doubt many of us would be willing
to part with our "inferior" 24-70 L's when the subject turns to portraits and the oh so
fine bokeh we've come to expect. Then there's that 'pop' that's hard to put a price tag on.
True, and I never called the 24-70 "inferior", I really want to prove to myself that this lens is worth the extra money. As noted, I'll address bokeh with my next test.
In this test, the 24-70L, 16-35L, 35/2.0, 18-55, and Tokina 12-24 were sans filter.
The 24-105L, Tamron 28-75, and both 70-200's had Hoya Super HMC UV(0)'s on them. Did not seem to hurt them though. I've done some tests with and without the UV(0) on a couple of my lenses and there was no difference. Maybe I'll get around to a more thorough filter test one of these days too.
I'm surprised how soft the L was on the wide end. At first I suspected the lens needed calibration, but its sufficiently sharp at other focal lengths. Tests like these make me want to buy another 28-75
hitek79 wrote:
wow, that's pretty interesting. how quick is the autofocus on the tamron? i have a tamron 24-135, and while the quality is awesome, the AF sucks. it hunts a lot.
I used to own the Tamron, but sold it because its autofocus was so much slower than the Canon. I used it to photograph weddings, and after missing a couple shots waiting for the Tamron to achieve focus, to the auction block it went. The Canon, by comparison, seems to snap instanty into focus every time. This makes it worth the premium, and many times over, for me.
oasis wrote:
I had a 24-70L and sold it for a 28-75 because I suspected what your test is now showing - that the extra $600 might be able to be put to better use.
But the L certainly focuses faster, quieter, and looks much better on the cam!
...because looks matter SO much!
I had a 24-70L as well and I sold it to get the tamron and two other lenses for the same money. I was much, MUCH happier.
I don't usually shoot sports with 24-70L because of dim lit gyms.
I like primes with faster glass like the ones you've mentioned.
It can work if I don't have other faster lens.
I use 24-70L for all people events because I really like the skin tone and the colors it brings out. I've used the Sigma and didn't like it at all.
I wonder how the Tamrons will do with AF Servo. I set my camera on AF Servo and 24-70L is incredibly fast to focus and quiet at the same time.
Dave Jr wrote:
I'll do a skin tone test later, strip the exif and see if you can pick the 24-70L shot. I shoot raw, so I can make the skin tone anything I wish.
Do you use the 24-70 for sports? I thought you said it was not fast enough, so you used your 35L, 50/1.4, & 85/1.8 instead?
No doubt the 24-70 AF is outstanding, but I've not been able to shoot at 2.8 indoors. Maybe your gyms are brighter up there north of the cities
I had the Canon 24-70L and sold it for this very reason. The Tamron isn't built as well but still isn't bad, but I couldn't justify the cost difference. Honestly, I think the autofocus on the Tamron is fine, where I have a beef is the manual focus ring getting sloppy. Optics are as good as the L if you ask me and this quick test validates what I knew all along.
I've used the tammy to shoot kids basketball and indoor soccer, and the AF was just fine for me. On my 20D with AI servo I didn't have trouble tracking, although at times the 20D did lock on to the background instead of the player. I do stop down a tad if I have the light to cheat on depth of field, but in general I have no complaints.
trenchmonkey wrote:
This is all well and good, when shooting stairs etc. Doubt many of us would be willing
to part with our "inferior" 24-70 L's when the subject turns to portraits and the oh so
fine bokeh we've come to expect. Then there's that 'pop' that's hard to put a price tag on.
Could someone post a "pop test"? Seriously! This is such a poorly defined term that I'd love to see what someone considers "pop". It seems to me the general definition is contrast between foreground and background, which would seem to be a DOF and bokeh issue.
As far as AF speed goes, the Tamron is fast enough for most situations for me, including candids and tracking AF. It's only the quickest and most chaotic moving subjects (ie: dogs) that give it troubles. The Canon is definitely better in that regard, but to me the noticeable improvement seems to come more from the speed it recovers from hunting, not so much AF speed in general. When AF misses, the Tamron takes longer to recover.
I find that at this focal range there aren't many subjects that can move quickly towards/away from you without bowling you over, so I settled on the Tamron. Combined with the AF assist from my 580EX it's extremely rare I get an AF miss when shooting candids.
This is a great test, and now I'd really like to see the Tamron 17-35 or 19-35 vs. the legendary 17-40L. I need a wide angle lens like nobody's business.
trenchmonkey wrote:
This is all well and good, when shooting stairs etc. Doubt many of us would be willing
to part with our "inferior" 24-70 L's when the subject turns to portraits and the oh so
fine bokeh we've come to expect. Then there's that 'pop' that's hard to put a price tag on.
Ok, by request of Will and others, here is one example from my bokeh test, 70mm, f/2.8. ACR conversion, no sharpening, NO post at all, other than resize. Does one have more "pop: than the other? Which one is the "L"? http://www.pbase.com/davejr/image/71200290/original.jpg
