p.1 #1 · your mission, should you choose to accept it...
The lens which wins THIS poll, is the one I shall purchase
My head hurts. All the numbers, all the hype, all the reviews.... I need a fast, quality standard zoom for 450 dollars or less as a walkaround lens. Its usages will be variable: candids, portraiture, critters...basically, this lens will be my walkaround, general purpose lens.
Factors to review include:
chromatic aberration
color reproduction
construction
focus speed
focusing noise
quirks (inferior quality control, unreliable, etc)
sharpness
teleconverter--1.4X (ability to use with? quality with?)
distortion (as long as it is not off the scale bad) should be weighed less as I will not be using this lens for architecture
FOR THE POLL, the OVERALL BEST should get your vote
please feel free to leave comments about specific lenses--i KNOW that I am not the only one who has contemplated over and over which of these lenses to purchase.
p.1 #4 · your mission, should you choose to accept it...
tamron 28-75 2.8 XR Di LD
"L snobs" (don't get mad, would be one if i could afford them) won't agree but I think it is a GREAT lens that is optically close the 28-70 on sharpness and saturation, however it is a bit slow and not "L" quality build wise
take a look at some I have shot with the tamron 28-75 2.8 XR Di LD
p.1 #5 · your mission, should you choose to accept it...
The Tamron xr/di (about $310) is a great lens esp. for the money, but it does kinda feel...not cheap...but not as quality as many others.
The Tokina...uh..just say no.
I just used the Sigma 24-70 for the first time today. My impressions were, is a very good lens solid build, great optics, and well within your budger (about $410 I think) compares favorably with the Tamron (maybe a bit better, haven't had a chance to do a side-by-side yet)
so to sum it up, I'd only be looking at the Tamron 28-75 XR/DI 2.8 and the Sigma 24-70 EX. Either one sould suit you well. (Keep in mind thet these reccomendations are just for those of us who don't have the budget to be a lens snob...YET)
p.1 #7 · your mission, should you choose to accept it...
kawter2 wrote:
tamron 28-75 2.8 XR Di LD
"L snobs" (don't get mad, would be one if i could afford them) won't agree but I think it is a GREAT lens that is optically close the 28-70 on sharpness and saturation, however it is a bit slow and not "L" quality build wise
take a look at some I have shot with the tamron 28-75 2.8 XR Di LD
p.1 #8 · your mission, should you choose to accept it...
to ALL who've responded, thank you. a bit interesting that no one has actually voted yet, but the comments are perhaps even more worthwhile. your efforts are definately appreciated.
to those who understand that buying a fast third-party zoom is ALREADY stretching the budget (poor college student here, which I why I was looking at used zooms), thank you for your suggestions of the sigma and tamron. of course, had I the money, I would opt for L glass, if for no other reason, because of USM.
with much time (we're talking years) I was planning to purchase the 17-40 and the 70-200 f4. With a (ff) EOS 3 I had assumed that the 17-40 is too wide for a walkaround lens--does anyone suggest otherwise? I currently have the 70-210 which is just fine for my telephoto purposes so there is no need to invest in a telezoom just yet.
why I need a standard zoom: because i don't have one! at all! I dropped the 28-105 I was previously using. without a lens, i gain no experience and will still suck with L glass in my hand. so either I use the 17-40, I get a third party zoom, or...continue trying to win the lotto? =]
p.1 #10 · your mission, should you choose to accept it...
Dear John,
First, people have been voting, you can access the results by putting in a vote of your own.
Secondly, the 17-40L has many reviews and is well thought of. Choosing between the 17-40 and Tamron 28-75 largely depends on what you want to photograph and your style of photography.
With the EOS 3, I personally would use the Tamron because of the larger maximum aperture, considering that 28mm is fairly wide. I might be a bit biased though because I have never used the 17-40 and am absolutely love my Tamron 28-75.
Jan 07, 2005 at 11:22 PM
fStopJojo Offline • • [X]
p.1 #11 · your mission, should you choose to accept it...
The Tamron is a good lens optically (if you get a good copy or calibrate it), and it compares to the Sigma 24-70 EX in this regard. But in practically every other area of lens assessment, it is a level BELOW the EX (e.g., build, AF speed). I have the 24-70L, 24-70EX (new DG Macro), and the Tamron 28-75Di. I can also say they rank in that order OVERALL (while the EX is the best wide open and the L rendering slightly better contrast and color). Plus, the EX and L have an extra 7mm FOV that the Di will never have, and on a 1.6x, that's significant. I assume most who have the Di never even tried the EX, let alone the new Macro version. My recommendation to you is to go and TRY OUT the lenses for YOURSELF. You'll find a world of difference in build, AF speed, and even sharpness wide open.
p.1 #12 · your mission, should you choose to accept it...
I have had the 24-70L and the Sigma 24-70 EX Macro. For the money, the Sigma is a great choice. Don't worry about a 28-70L - a good copy usually sells between $700 to $800, so it's not in the same price category.
The most important aspect of the Sigma 24-70 EX - the extra 4mm at the wide end. Those are golden mm's!!! As mentioned earlier that extra 7mm goes very, very far in terms of wide angle. The Sigma also has very good performance (sharpness) at F2.8.
p.1 #14 · your mission, should you choose to accept it...
I agree with Jeff "You need a 'None of the Above' choice." ,
if you want my honest opinion.
Jan 14, 2005 at 01:10 PM
fStopJojo Offline • • [X]
p.1 #15 · your mission, should you choose to accept it...
John_B, I'll safely assume that if the 24-70L was in the running, that would get your vote. Id est, "none of the above" means "I like the 24-70L." I'm sure if it was in the running, it'd be far and away the front runner. If Tamron came out with a 24-70 Di f2.8 and made it BUILT BETTER with FASTER AF, that would be nice. I guess they don't want to get everyone confused though as Sigma has done with all their 24-xx and 28-xx!
