Hi there. I have the 1D with the 17-40 F4, 70-200 F4 and the 300 F4...because of the 1.3 crop factor I'm missing the 70mm...I was thinking in the 24-85mm or the 50mm (65 mm), any advice?
Really depends... What do you think you need ? Between 40 and 70 there really isn't a whole lot of room... So unless you know you need something to cover the range, I wouldn't buy anything... But it depends on your shooting style... Do you feel that you are missing the 70mm range in your shooting ?
I have the 17-40 and the 70-200, as you do. I also prefer the 50mm for in-between necessities. I used to have the Tamron 28-75, but after shooting two rolls, my wife and I could both see a visibly lower level of sharpness compared to the 50mm/1.8 lens. I returned the Tamron to the store. Don't get me wrong. It's not bad and I, in fact, liked it. However it was optically roughly equivalent to my EF 28-70/3.5-4.5 (around $100 used) and I saw no reason to spend over $300 for the Tamron to duplicate that.
I saw no reason to spend over $300 for the Tamron to duplicate that.
You got a bum lens, really its quite sharp, not L prime sharp but close.
I would still highly recommend the Tamron 28-75 DI f2.8 lens. It does not go to 90mm, but its f2.8 all the way and a great lens. See the review here on the FM site:
was optically roughly equivalent to my EF 28-70/3.5-4.5
Either you tried it only at 75mm and f/2.8, or you got a bad copy of the lens. The one I had was soft at f/2.8 pretty much throughout its range, and a little softer at 75mm. But from the wide end until at least 55mm, it was very sharp from f/3.5 on. Here's a 100% crop of a shot taken at 55mm and f/3.5:
CA and construction issues aside, this is a real gem of an old lens optically.
kansashoops wrote:
Either you tried it only at 75mm and f/2.8, or you got a bad copy of the lens. The one I had was soft at f/2.8 pretty much throughout its range, and a little softer at 75mm. But from the wide end until at least 55mm, it was very sharp from f/3.5 on. Here's a 100% crop of a shot taken at 55mm and f/3.5:
Dave and KansasHoops, perhaps you didn't understand what I was saying, but "nutek" above clarified it. The 28-70 is one of Canon's very best consumer lens, but it's a tad below primes and L lenses. I did like the Tamron and found it roughly equivalent to the 28-70/f3.5, but I've gotten a little picky over the years and I notice the slight differences more now than I used to. No, I don't believe I had a "bum" or "bad" version of the Tamron. It was pretty good, but it definitely is not L quality when comparison photos are scrutinized VERY closely. Since I did this comparison roughly 11 to 12 months ago, I don't have the photos handy, and I wasn't figuring on having to post "proof" in FM. ;~) BTW KansasHoops, your posted photo looks sharp.
Jerry, I understand and opinions will vary. From what I saw without a magnifying glass or a print under 8x10 I could not see any difference between the 28-75 Tamron and some of my other L glass. I'm picky as well. I've also found that very few people can tell the difference in a print made with my Canon Primes and my below average 28-300 Tamron (below average by L standards anyway).
Have you ever shot your 70-200 L @ f2.8? You want to see soft - try that. Oh I just noticed you have the 70-200 f4 - guess you can't try that.
My point was that I believe the Tamron is extremely close to the quality of the Canon L zooms at most apertures/focal lengths, and that even close scrutiny will bear this out. That's why I posted the 100% crop. I have other shots at other apertures and focal lengths that are comparable. Here are some more shots with the 28-75. All are very sharp, even at 100%, and have wonderful color and contrast:
The only reason I sold mine was because I tend to use the long end of my zooms far more than the wide end, and I tend to shoot wide open. I was always going to be fighting with the lens, always stopping down when I didn't want to, etc. So I went to the 24-70 where I don't have to worry about that. But I may very well pick up another one in the future just to use as a walkaround lens.
