I'm starting out and building my arsenal. I want to get two fast lenses. Right now I am considering the Canon 2.8 70-300 IS and the Canon 2.8 24-70. I shoot with a Canon 5D, with a 28-135 3.5.
I see that the Sigma and Tamron lenses are less expensive but are they as good as the Canon? Would it be better just to go ahead and invest in the Canon lenses?
I have no experience with the telephoto, but I have compared the 2.8 for canon and tamron. I love my tamron--it was the first lens I got and is still my favorite. Having tried the canon, here are some disadvantages that I agree/have heard:
--It's not as sharp wide open (For me this wasn't that noticeable to justify the difference).
--It's louder because it doesn't have USM (for me, indoor noise has always made this negligable for me).
--It's faster focusing (here is my biggest gripe, but it's been an occasional moment when I missed a shot, but it's rarer than I think it is).
That said, I don't know why it got such a low score on the ratings. Most camera vendors will tell you people who compare the two lenses, will usually choose the tamron.
Which builds the best automobiles, Toyota, GM, Honda, Ford, Chrysler, Audi, etc, etc
There are those in America who would never buy a foreign vehicle because they feel they will fall apart compared to the hefty U.S. built counterparts. There are those who perceive that all American vehicles are cheaply made compared to all foreign vehicles.
Look at the review carefully and judge. Some people give a bad rating because the company who sold the lens shipped it too slow (go figure). In any case the reviews will give you decent answers to what you are asking here.
Personally, I find the Tamron 28-75 2.8 a rather darn good lens. I don't notice problems with focusing speed at all, but that greatly depends on how you shoot. Those who shoot 6k of images in 8 hours would definitely see a problem. I only shoot 600 or so in that same time frame (no pun). There are those who need to feel the heft and metal to be comfortable.
I've also owned and loved the Sigma 2.8 70-200. I hope they some day come out with a OS version.
One lens that it extremely beautiful is the Canon 135L f/2. Even the 85 1.8 is nice for the money.
Watch out for those who give advice but have never tried a third party lens. Some still have a perception that dates back to the 70s, in which case they might have a point....based on nearly decades old info.
I've tried all of the 2.8 24-70 zooms. Canon, Tamron and Sigma.
Sigma was good build quality, but zoom was loud and it was soft. This was 3 different copies. Decent lens for money.
Tamron was better. Sharper, lighter, smaller, but weaker build. Short end was 28mm though.
Canon is by far (in my book) the best. Full time manual focus, fast and silent AF, colors much better, and the latest copy is pretty darn sharp. Heavy, more expensive, but well worth it.
Hope this helps. In terms of sharpness, they are going to be pretty close, but it's the mechanics and functionality that draw me to L glass.
You get the odd surprisingly good Tammy or Sigma but sadly you can't get a 'generic' that's as good as Canon L-glass. However, they better third party lenses usually best the non-L Canons. I've always found the non-L canons a bit soft on digital.
From experience it's best to marry manufacturers lenses with their respective bodies eg Canon glass on a canon body as they are intuitevely designed for peak performance.
would definately favour the 70-200 2.8 L over that green ringed 70-300 DO lens.
The only Non canon lens i use is the sigma 15mm 2.8 (Beautiful) and the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 that my assistant uses on a 40D.
I've had the Tamron 28-70 and now use a Canon 24-105, the Tamron peforms pretty well but it's build quality is no where near what the Canon's is. I found the Canon to be slightly sharper not to mention it focuses blisteringly fast and is dead silent.
Having mentioned the focus speed on the Canon I found the Tamron to be more than acceptable for the most part.
Personally I found that after all the cheapies I bought I still wanted the real deal and in the end I did get them... that being said I do have fond memories of the Tamron 28-70
I've tried Canon, Sigmas and Tamrons.
I'd say they are all good and I was happy with them.
I wouldn't hesitate to use Sigmas or Tamrons if I cant afford the Canons.
I bought the Canons now because I can afford it and probably for the USM which I felt like faster compare to Sigmas and Tamrons.
But again, I don't hesitate to use any Sigmas or Tamrons if situation dictated me to.
I've shoot with several photographers who were using Sigmas or Tamrons and their result are still amazed me.
I've used two versions of the Sigma 24-70, the Tamron, and two Tokinas (28-80 and 28-70). The Tamron was the sharpest but I didn't like the build or heft much. The Sigma was acceptable but I don't like the lens finish they use. The Tokina 28-80 was built great but damn, Tokina should be making pillows their lenses are so soft.
There's just nothing like the 24-70L. You should also consider that you've got a $2k body and you're considering plunking down $300 for what will probably be your main lens. I try to keep more cash in my glass than my bodies as I think it shows in your images. It's also a bit hard to respect someone using junk glass unless it's a seriously risky shoot. It's one thing if it's an 85 1.8, 100mm macro, or 50 1.4. For everything else, there's nothing like an L.
The Sigma and Tamron are OK but they are not as good as Canon. I have a Sigma 24-70,2.8 and it is slow to focus and lots of noise. A little stiff feeling. Not a quality feel but will take a good image. The Tamron 28-70 is smooth but again slower to focus,also sharp nice images. I prefer it over the sigma. The Canon 24-70 is perfect. Great build, ultra quiet, smooth and sharp. For me it is worth the extra money but if you just don't have the cash the Tamron can do the job, just not as easy on the photographer as that half second to focus in low light can make or break a image. Same with flash and everything else. Buy the best and your life as a photographer is a lot easier. I keep mine as 2nd and 3rd backups just in case.
). In any case the reviews will give you decent answers to what you are asking here.