I'm after a general purpose walk-around lens, and the tammy seems to fit the bill. Most reviews however are on crop cams and I really wanted to know how it performs on FF.
Cheers
John
PS. Also have 17-40 which i feel is a bit too wide as a general purpose lens.
If you don't need the speed and wouldn't mind a bit more range for a walk-around, also take a serious look at the Tamron SP 24-135. This is one of the most under-rated (or unrated, I suppose) lenses in existence. Shockingly good on a 5D, particularly between 24 and 90. Performance drops a bit at the long end (especially wide open), but remains very usable on a 5D (much better than typical "Super-Zooms"). Colour and contrast are remarkable for a zoom with this many elements, flare is not a big issue, build quality is better than any other modern Tamron I have used (more like Tokina) and the size and weight balance perfectly on a 5D. The best part is, you can pick one up for an amazing price these days.
To give you an idea of the performance, I tested my copy of the Tamron at 100mm (not its strongest focal length) wide open (f5.6) versus a Contax Zeiss Sonnar 100/3.5 (stopped down to f5.6). I posted the results (w/100% crops) in the Alt. forum and most people could not tell the difference. The Sonnar is one of the sharpest lenses Zeiss has made, according to MTF charts.
So again, it is slow but it is a surprisingly good lens that offers a lot of range to a 5D shooter at a ridiculously low price.
I have the 5D and Tamron 28-75 2.8 and love it. I just recently bought a 24-105 4.0L and love that one too! The Tammy hasn't seen any action since I got the 24-105 but I don't think I will sell it because it is that good!
If you get a good copy, it is an amazing lens for the money.
minatophase3 wrote:
.... I just recently bought a 24-105 4.0L and love that one too! The Tammy hasn't seen any action since I got the 24-105 but I don't think I will sell it because it is that good! ...
Tim
I know that the OP is interested in the Tammy, and I realize that the 24-105 is a completely different league price wise, and its not f/2.8, but I've been very impressed by the performance of the 24-105. I got it with the 5D kit thinking that I would probably sell it, but I've been amazed at the sharpness and colors from this lens.....
101% for me. Mine is sharper than two 24-70L's I've tested, and it's much smaller/lighter (especially with the hood). I don't mind the lack of weather sealing or the slower AF, so it's a win-win-win for me.
I don't really have a "favorite" lens, but if I had to pick my most useful lens, this is definitely it. Mated to my 5D it almost always allows me to leave the primes at home. DOF is plenty short at f/2.8, and the lens is sharp with good corners at any focal length or aperture.
not at all... even though I do prefer *something* about what I get out of my 24-70L to my friend's 28-75... but at half the weight, I'm sure I would actually shoot the Tamron much more if I had one...
John Power wrote:
I know. The 24-70 crowd hates to hear us say this and insists that we are off out rocker
I've used it on film, a 30D and now a 5D and there's no way I'm giving it up. It was stuck on the front of each most of the time and I was always satisfied. From my testing the only weak spot I saw with mine was wide open at 28mm.
Paul
John Power wrote:
I know. The 24-70 crowd hates to hear us say this and insists that we are off out rocker
I've had the 24-70L since Dec. 2002--bought the Tammy last Spring. I find the Tamron on my camera a good bit of the time. I do find the L focuses a bit faster, a bit more contrast but I shoot in RAW so the last is irrelevant--but the Tamron is sharper from corner to corner at some FLs than the L. AF rarely is an issue with me so the Tamron is my often used midrange zoom on the 5D. I keep thinking about selling the L, esp. since I've retired from my parttime commercial work--and may still. Its just tough to sell a lens that has been much used, much loved *smile*---but I haven't used it to any extent since I bought the Tamron, I admit--but it does have that 'something' that keeps it in my lens collection.
I couldn't see enough difference between the 24-70L I bought used and the Tamron (I also have the 24-105 L) so sold the 24-70 a few weeks later for what I paid and kept the Tamron. It's smaller, lighter, cheaper and so close in IQ that I'll never see the difference unless I spend way too much time looking for it.
Loved the size and price of the tammy but I opted for the 24-70, which in my case was sharper wide open, offered far better contrast and just gave more consistent results overall. I agree the tamron is outstanding value for money but in my experience it's about 75% of the 24-70 in terms of IQ *and* build and about 85-90% in terms of IQ alone. For some people than extra 15% is worth paying for.
