Yes, and I think about travel too. The 24-105 on a 5d is a really nice travel lens. That's why I kept the 70-200 f/4 after purchasing the 2.8 IS. The 2.8 is a beast, not very travel friendly.
I've owned the Tamron 28-75 for a couple of years and was delighted with its performance on the 300D amd 20D. I was even pleased with performance on a 5D until I did a bit less formal comparison than you did. I applaud your effort by the way.
A couple of months ago I compared the lens wide open with both the Canon 28-105 and a recently acquired copy of the venerable EF 28-70 f/2.8L at 28mm. Center sharpness found the Tamron a touch sharper than the 28-70 but at the periphery the light fall off and softness of the Tamron made it virtually unusable. The old 28-105 outperformed the Tamron at the edges. The 28-70L performed wonderfully at the edges and has now become the lens at this focal length that most finds its way to my camera. Of course, I'm more likely to have a prime on the front of my camera than any zoom.
Thanks for offering grist for this never ending mill. What fun we're all having!
CKrueger wrote:
I had a Tamron 17-35 for a while, and compared to the 17-40 the results were very similar to Dave's test: the Tamron was sharper, particularly at f/4. It also had better (sharper) corners. The Canon's usability is definitely better. (The Tamron's moving focus ring was particularly bothersome to me, as it's hard NOT to touch it while holding the lens.)
I like the L's color much more than the Tamron's flat-ish colors. This was with my 28-75 compared to a 24-70. With that said, I shoot with a Tamron because of $ reasons.
Hi Brad, I posted on your thread. I do have 70-200 tests still floating around, but they are so different from you test that a comparison would not be very useful. If you want me to send you a couple anyway, send me a pm with your email address
