Which Tamron 28-75 f2.8?

[dmwierz]

I am in the market for a fast ( f2.8 ) relatively wide zoom to shoot halftime activities at night HS football games, and to shoot indoor basketball this Fall. I have looked at the Sigma 24-70 EX and the Canon L, but I have read a lot of great comments about the Tamron 28-75. Problem is, everybody just calls it the Tamron 28-75 and there are two Tamron 28-75 f2.8's out ther, the Tamron SP AF28-75MM F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) and the Tamron AF 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di Zoom. They are both about the same price.

So, which is better?

Thanks,

Dennis

[condyk]

They're the same ...

[dmwierz]

They're the same ...

Doh! OK, how does this lens stack up against the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX? I have the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and so far am very pleased with it, but it's just too long to shoot in close quarters, and the Canon L's are just too much money.

Also, is this range of lenses appropriate for shooting indoor basketball, or would the 70-200 be more appropriate?

Thanks again.

[peterdoomen]

They're indeed the same. I have a copy of it and I'm very happy with this lens. Sharp, fast, lightweight and cheap considered the alternatives. I've never met or heard one who was disappointed with this lens.

PeteR.

[chtgrubbs]

According to Pop Photo http://www.popphoto.com the Tamron outperforms the Sigma. The Sigma 24-60 EX looks like it would be comparable to the Tamron if you want the wider field of view.

[LightRules]

And according to Practical Photography [UK], the older "DF" 24-70EX outperforms the Tamron. This issue is discussed to death. Get a good copy of either and you'll have yourself a lovely lens. If $ isn't an issue, get the 24-70L. I like the Sigma 24-70 much more but many like the Tamron. At FM, both have about a 83% "recommended" rating, or thereabouts. See my site for test shots.

[SSquared2000]

dmwierz, there are many threads on this subject and both lenses seem to be favorites with those who own them. I have the Tamron and really like it. It should be wide enough to capture the half-time shows, but you should do a quick test by taking your 28-135 and seeing how much of the field you can actually capture at 28 mm.

I'm not sure you'll be able to really shoot into the action for the basketball games, if you are looking to get that close. Your 120-300 should work well for that.

[BigBlueDodge]

Both seem about the same optically. It really depends on what you want in a lens. The Sigma is a much larger heavier lens, and the Tamron is smaller, and lighter. I'm sure you will be happy with both. I have the Tamron and its been a fantastic lens for me.

[JasonW]

I agree with "BigBlueDodge". I did the evaluation a few months ago and found very similar performance. I went with the Tamron because the Sigma I tested had some front focussing problems at 24mm. From what I have read there are examples of both lenses that have similar issues. The secret is to run a quick check on the lens before you walk away with it. Either lens will be fantastic as long as you can get a good copy.

[Cadwell]

Doh! OK, how does this lens stack up against the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX? I have the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and so far am very pleased with it, but it's just too long to shoot in close quarters, and the Canon L's are just too much money.


Don't take the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 as a guide... it's better than just about any other zoom you'll ever pick up...

[dmwierz]

dmwierz, there are many threads on this subject and both lenses seem to be favorites with those who own them. I have the Tamron and really like it. It should be wide enough to capture the half-time shows, but you should do a quick test by taking your 28-135 and seeing how much of the field you can actually capture at 28 mm.

I'm not sure you'll be able to really shoot into the action for the basketball games, if you are looking to get that close. Your 120-300 should work well for that.

To all, thanks for the info. Regarding the 28-135, it's just too SLOW for the halftime cheerleader stuff - that's the lens I have been using. Even with a flash, I'm having all kinds of trouble freezing their movements. I've used my 120-300 a bit durng halftime, and this does the same excellent job that it does during the game, but I have to shoot the cheerleaders and band members from WAY back to get their entire bodies in frame. Maybe I'll give my 50mm f1.8 a go to see if it does any better.

[condyk]

I owned the Tamron and the Sigma and you should just buy which you prefer. I like the heavier weight of the Sigma and wider 24mm but would have been perfectly happy to have kept the Tamron too.

[DavidEB]

dmwierz wrote: to shoot .... at night HS football games, and to shoot indoor basketball this Fall

While I'm very pleased with my tamron 28-75, I don't think it will do a good job in the settings you describe. The focus is fast enough for daytime/outdoor b-ball, but it hunts in low light. Get something that's at least f2.8 and has either USM (canon) or HSM (sigma). Slower focussing lenses might not cut it. For the purposes you're describing I shoot with my sigma 70-200. You might also consider one of the canon primes in the 85 to 135 mm range, those should really work well for you if you can do without zoom.

[dmwierz]

dmwierz wrote:

While I'm very pleased with my tamron 28-75, I don't think it will do a good job in the settings you describe. The focus is fast enough for daytime/outdoor b-ball, but it hunts in low light. Get something that's at least f2.8 and has either USM (canon) or HSM (sigma). Slower focussing lenses might not cut it. For the purposes you're describing I shoot with my sigma 70-200. You might also consider one of the canon primes in the 85 to 135 mm range, those should really work well for you if you can do without zoom.

Oh, I hadn't realized the Tamron didn't have the equivalent of HSM or USM.

Thanks.

[dmwierz]

I owned the Tamron and the Sigma and you should just buy which you prefer. I like the heavier weight of the Sigma and wider 24mm but would have been perfectly happy to have kept the Tamron too.

I just noticed that Sigma offers a 24-60, a 24-70 and a 28-70, all in f2.8 EX. What are the differences between these three seemingly similar lenses? They are priced approx the same, and the only things I see in the specs that appears different is the 24-70 is also described specifically as a macro lens.

It seems the 24-60 is touted as a compact lens, but all these lenses cover such a similar focal range and all are constant f2.8 lenses that I wonder why they offer all three?

[DavidEB]

dmwierz --

the sigma lenses that don't have HSM in them are in general even slower to focus than the tamron. That's why I mentioned the sigma 70-200 -- it's got the HSM focus motor.

[dmwierz]

dmwierz --

the sigma lenses that don't have HSM in them are in general even slower to focus than the tamron. That's why I mentioned the sigma 70-200 -- it's got the HSM focus motor.

Just went on Sigma's site and printed out their lens comparison. Looks like none of the three above-listed lenses have HSM. I've been looking for an excuse to spring for a 70-200 f2.8 and maybe this is it. I presume the difference between 70 and 120 is noticeable, at almost 50% more FOV. I'd like to be able to zoom in on faces yet be able to zoom out for whole body/group shots.

Is the Canon 24-70 L the only f2.8 lens in this range to have USM/HSM?

[tim]

I find the Tamron 28-75 focuses quickly enough for me (weddings, theatre, general stuff), and it makes great photos. The 70-200 F2.8 IS focuses slightly more quickly, but there's not much in it IMHO, you'd need a stopwatch and lots of trials to work it out. I don't find either to seek more than the other, though i've used the Tamron a lot more than the Canon.

From what i've read I suspect the Sigma 24-70 would do the job just as well, though i've not tried it myself.

[Reminisce]

Late response but figured I'd add my 2 cents.

I've been an owner of this lens for over h alf a year and next to my 50, its the best value for quality photography purchase I've made. It stays on my camera full time and only comes off when I need particular shots (ie. Macro, more bokeh, wider angle, etc). It renders colors very well and for a zoom is very sharp and on point. It also focuses internally, but zooms externally, meaning while focusing, the lens just turns and doesnt extend, while zooming the barrel pulls out and in.

The only downs I've come across with this lens is that as mentioned above, it does hunt a bit, but nothing overwhelming. Its speedy, but not super fast, and it makes the mechanical noise while it's autofocusing. In comparison, the 50 is louder when focusing, however the 50 is also faster.

Most of the times I manually focus or lead it off when focusing since the barrel is so comfortable and has such a nice grip, its a nice lens to hold and feels perfect in your hands. Hope this helped a bit.

[pcasciola]

I bought my Tamron 28-75 about a year ago as well, and while I'm very happy with it, I often think of replacing it with the Sigma 24-60 or 24-70 because I find 28mm not wide enough a lot of the time.

The Tamron focus is loud, but not slow at all. At 70mm, the Tamron focuses way faster than my 70-200/2.8L IS, and about the same or maybe a hair slower than my 85/1.8.

[DavidEB]

Phil --

even in low light? I find the tamron focus pretty fast in good light (as you say, close to the 70-200) but it slows down somewhat indoors.

and I'll second above comments -- other than this one issue it is a superb lens.


David

[LightRules]

Don't take the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 as a guide... it's better than just about any other zoom you'll ever pick up...

I'm getting tired of agreeing witih Cadwell. :eek: He's right, the 120-300 is truly "sui generis" and Canon has NO answer for it. Best zoom I've ever used.

[LightRules]

I bought my Tamron 28-75 about a year ago as well, and while I'm very happy with it, I often think of replacing it with the Sigma 24-60 or 24-70 because I find 28mm not wide enough a lot of the time.

The Tamron focus is loud, but not slow at all. At 70mm, the Tamron focuses way faster than my 70-200/2.8L IS, and about the same or maybe a hair slower than my 85/1.8.

Phil, FWIW I replaced my (beloved) 24-70EX with the 18-50EX because it wasn't "wide enough" for me as a walk around. But 24mm might be enough for you. The Sigma 24-70EX focus is louder than the Tamron but in every copy I've used (3 of each on a 1Ds and 20D) the Sigma focus is significantly faster. It is very zippy and quick but noisy.