Dave Jr wrote:
I think that might have to do with the angle. I had to stand much further back, and there was a wall in the way, so I had to move left. Usually, they have round highlight discs.
Ah, that's reassuring. The 70-200/2.8IS is on my "buy eventually" list, for portraiture and nighttime auto racing... one needs excellent bokeh and the other needs to control OOF point light sources very well.
Thanks again for the tests! It's nice to see the 28-75 vs 24-70 comparison demystified. There are way too many "I like LensX better" statements floating around, and not enough hard data.
It's funny that I came to the forum today to ask about JUST THIS SUBJECT.
I sold my "normal" zoom, so all I have left now is my 70-200 2.8L and 100/F2 (and the kit lens if that counts). I borrowed my brother's Tamron 28-75 and was REALLY disappointed in the results. I shoot indoor sports (but under stage lighting.....competitive cheerleading), and the AF speed was horribly slow and almost ALL the pictures, while in focus, had a "point & shoot/snapshot" like character to them, low contrast and rather dull color. Am I just SO spoiled by the 70-200 zoom? I had been looking to get a 24-70L to fill that need, but now Im more confused than ever. Even my former Sigma 28-70 EX DG 2.8 was better than the Tamron I tried.
Charlie, indoor sports would not be an area of strength for the Tamron, but then, as stated before, many indoor sports facilities are too dim for any f2.8 lens. If choosing between the two, and AF speed is the primary concern, go with the 24-70. It's no contest. Shoot raw if you're not already, you disappointment could have been a WB issue?
Tamrons have a six year warranty for the original owner, so one can send it in for calibration no charge if it is deemed to be a poor copy.
I was also shooting with the 70-200L, and had plenty of light to get 1/500 at f3.5 and 1600. I had a manual WB set (albeit with the Canon lens). I shoot in RAW only. Should I have set the WB again with the Tamron? I can fiddle with the WB on the computer and see if it improves the shots.
i had the tammy and ran about 50k shots thru it - had to go back to the factory for pretty much everything to be replaced ($200 worth of work on a $375 lens). loved the sharpness for the money, hated the slight yellow cast, the build quality is just ok and the AF was slow (enough to miss shots during several events). i now own a 25-70 that i have run about 60k shots thru it (this is my main focal length for 85% of my work) and will not go back. the build, the IQ, the AF speed (esp on a mk2n), the color and skin tones all beat my tamron hands down. i also know i am paying for L quality build so i know when i need that lens to work (rain, shine, mosh pit), it works and i can get the shot. is it worth the extra money, for you? maybe not. for me? every penny.
Charlier26 wrote:
I was also shooting with the 70-200L, and had plenty of light to get 1/500 at f3.5 and 1600. I had a manual WB set (albeit with the Canon lens). I shoot in RAW only. Should I have set the WB again with the Tamron? I can fiddle with the WB on the computer and see if it improves the shots.
That's pretty good light then. The Tamron is warmer than most Canon lenses. Tweaking the color temp and tint, you should be able to get a similar color out of the Tamron.
tmronin wrote:
well, i'm gonna throw my 2 cents in on this.
i had the tammy and ran about 50k shots thru it - had to go back to the factory for pretty much everything to be replaced ($200 worth of work on a $375 lens). loved the sharpness for the money, hated the slight yellow cast, the build quality is just ok and the AF was slow (enough to miss shots during several events). i now own a 25-70 that i have run about 60k shots thru it (this is my main focal length for 85% of my work) and will not go back. the build, the IQ, the AF speed (esp on a mk2n), the color and skin tones all beat my tamron hands down. i also know i am paying for L quality build so i know when i need that lens to work (rain, shine, mosh pit), it works and i can get the shot. is it worth the extra money, for you? maybe not. for me? every penny.
The point of this post was not to say that the 24-70 sucks. There is really nothing new here, other than some pictures. It is well known that the Tamron is a super value and produces exceptional image quality. I ran this test to help me decide personally which way to go with my kit. It makes no sense to keep all three of the Tamron, the 24-70, and the 24-105. I need to choose. So step one, for me, was this test. I thought others might find the results interesting. This test just shows what many people already know, the image quality between these lenses is very close. Close enough that on IQ alone, the 24-70 is probably not worth the extra money for many people. I agree with the points that you and others have brought up. You pay a lot more for the build, weather sealing, more pleasing bokeh, and superior AF of the Canon. For some people, like yourself, and many pros, it is worth it. It might be worth it for me as well, I have not yet decided what to do.
I had a Tamron lens and i used it to covered wedding exclusively! Well designed lens with superb optical quality! I love the warmer colours it produces for wedding shots. Used to have 24-70mm before but find it too bulky. Never regret getting the tamron lens.
There's another thread going on similar to this one, and if you are very happy with the tammy's performance and usability then keep it. It makes more sense to sell the more valuable/expensive L glass, as you can use the proceeds to fund another purchase to cover a range you don't have triply covered.
>> This point of this post was not to say that the 24-70 sucks. ...
>> I ran this test to help me decide personally which way to go with my kit.
Yeah, that was pretty obvious to me, so thanks again. I personally like my 24-70 and see hints in your tests that I would still prefer it to the Tamron... but probably for many photos it is a total wash... after seeing your test it reconfirms that my original plan to try the Tamron first would have maybe saved me a bunch of money though
IE. I don't have a side... but I do have a 24-70 that I now love too much to worry about swapping for a Tamron...
Tim, either way, one of the L's has to go. When the 5d gets here, I'll try to decide if I want to keep the 24-70 or the 24-105. If I keep the 24-70, then both the Tamron and the 24-105 will go. If I sell the 24-70, I'll keep the Tamron and the 24-105.
mh2000 wrote:
>> This point of this post was not to say that the 24-70 sucks. ...
>> I ran this test to help me decide personally which way to go with my kit.
Yeah, that was pretty obvious to me, so thanks again. I personally like my 24-70 and see hints in your tests that I would still prefer it to the Tamron... but probably for many photos it is a total wash... after seeing your test it reconfirms that my original plan to try the Tamron first would have maybe saved me a bunch of money though
IE. I don't have a side... but I do have a 24-70 that I now love too much to worry about swapping for a Tamron......Show more →
I see those same hints, and that is part of what makes deciding so difficult.
Yeah, the real problem in deciding this is that there is no one test that can prove to you or anyone that one lens is better than the others... between those 3 lenses there are probably specific shots that each one could be best at... it is more about trying to decide which lens is going to be best at more of your shots than the others...
