I really need to get a new standard lens, my 35-80 just isnt cutting it, plus its 15 years old so i dont know how much longer it'll hold out for. I would like to get a canon 24-70 2.8L but I couldnt exactly cough up a grand on a lens. I have narrowed my options to the sigma 24-70 2.8 and tamrons equal model ( i cant think of the focal length off the top of my head, but i know its a 2.8 ). Has anyone had any experience with these? If its decent, i could easily fork out around 300-400 for one of these.
thanks

Concensus here would say get the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, and personal experience would concur. I've also got the 24-70L, and tne Tamron doesn't fall very short in comparison, even on my 5D.

wow, its that good huh. for a lens that goes for more than half of canons and be as good as you say, thats pretty impressive.

Check for other threads in the Canon mount SLR forum. I carry the Tamron much more often, mostly because it's also 1/2 the size and weight. It does give up a bit in color and contrast, the bokeh isn't quite so special, and AF is slower. But, it's a great lens,nonetheless, and offers maybe 90% of what the Canon can. This is my second one, actually, as I sold the first to buy the Canon, but found I missed the Tamron.

The bokeh , as Dean mentioned, not spectacular and AF is a bit noise and slow, but the lens is fantastic, super value.

Since you're on a 30D, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 may be a better option. It's a better range, and is at least as good as the 28-75.

The Tamron would be my choice in a heartbeat and it's great on FF too.

Another vote for the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8:

the tamron seems pretty promising, i do have a question about it. does it have internal focusing? I dont know the exact name of it, but its where the top of the lens stays stationary and you can adjust the focus on a ring at the bottom of the lens. I use a cir polarizing filter and id rather have it stay in place rather than move with the focusing ring.

The barrel of the Tamron moves in and out as you change focal length (fully extended at 75mm) but it does not rotate.

awesome, if its as good as you guys say it is, sounds like a winner to me.

is this lens the asphercial one? theres two 28-75 2.8s on the review section.

John Potts wrote:
is this lens the asphercial one? theres two 28-75 2.8s on the review section.

Mine is.

Is there much of a difference between the 2?

I don't think there ever were two different lenses - just some confusion because the full name is so ridiculously long. Not to worry.

lol thats what i kinda figured, whats the filter size on it? i usually get some stuff for lenses before I buy the lens itself.

btw, this has all been a huge help. thanks alot for saving me like $600 extra on the canon 24-70 2.8L

the reason i asked about the 2 separate lenses is because on the reviews, theres a tamron 28-75 2.8 XR Di LD aspherical (if), and a tamron 28-75 28 XR Di, (shrug)

67mm is the filter size, but I'm going to advise against using any filters unless adverse or special conditions dictate. Use of a UV in adverse weather may be OK (blowing sand, surf, etc.) for example. A circular polarizer or GND/ND may be another special use, but never just slap on a cheap UV just for "protection". The Tamron comes with a suitable lens hood, which will actually improve image quality.

I mainly shoot cars and circular polarizers help cut the reflections, but i already have a 67mm filter from my 70-200 F4 so it looks like im already in good shape. I might get another down the road that way i dont have to switch them out whenever I use them.

Another awsomew lens often overlooked in this range is the sigma 24-60, just an awsome lens, if you know how to move your feet for that extra 10-15mm.

all of my tamrons in the past have been super loud and super slow.

If I had to pick, I'd get Tokina lenses over Sigma and Tamron

tootalew wrote:
Another awsomew lens often overlooked in this range is the sigma 24-60, just an awsome lens, if you know how to move your feet for that extra 10-15mm.

The Sigma 24-60 EX is a good deal smaller and lighter than the 24-70 EX. A bit lacking in contrast wide open but a very impressive performer stopped down a little. AF is fast and 'accurate' (on my copy) not as quiet as USM but not particularly noisy either. For what I paid for it - a real bargain.

tootalew wrote:
Another awsomew lens often overlooked in this range is the sigma 24-60, just an awsome lens, if you know how to move your feet for that extra 10-15mm.

I really liked this lens as well, when I had a crop camera. Very nice compromise between range, weight, quality and size.

Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di Macro Perfect balance for my 5D
Check this out..............
http://www.lubowphotography.com/tamron-canon-test.htm