Should I part with my Tamron 28-75mm f2.9 for 24-70L?

[Canonised]

Opps - meant to type f2.8 in subject line.

Hi

I have just been offered a 4 month old 24-70mm f2.8L at US$1100 and I am tempted. However, I have a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 and have been happy with it (albeit that I do not use it that often).

On my 20D the zoom in that range does not seem all that useful - so I am tad hesitant in buying a lens I would not use all that often. I note with interest that many Canon photographers swear by the this L lens. I may be missing something here so personal advise is most welcome!

I would be most interested from those who had replaced their Tamron 28-75 with a Canon 24-70L about their experience.

Thanks!

[SuzyView]

I think I got my 24-70L cheaper than that new from B&H. Let me see.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=435783&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

This is the link with the psmay code $1099 and the $50 rebate should get you $1050.

[Canonised]

Hi Suzy

I am located in Singapore and am not sure if the rebate is valid for non US citizen purchases. Also warranty may not be covered over here. :cry:

ALSO for some extraordinary reason - lenses here are more expensive than Japan and US (where rebates are found).

Apart from the price - does the L lens make good sense for replacing the Tamron?


I think I got my 24-70L cheaper than that new from B&H. Let me see.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=435783&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

This is the link with the psmay code $1099 and the $50 rebate should get you $1050.

[cdifoto]

Apart from the price - does the L lens make good sense for replacing the Tamron?

When you take price out of the equation, it's an absolute no-brainer.

[Canonic]

Well, being Canonised, you still may look for a 28-70/2.8L USM
(senior model of 24-70). This lens is still available on the market. And you may try ebay or other auctions.

You probably won't see too much difference with regards to Tamron on a cropped sensor (10D/20D/30D). But it becomes obvious on a full-frame DSLR (1Ds Mk II and 5D). Moreover, it's got very nice bokeh and very useful Macro ability. There are only two CONs: price and weight.

[Canonised]

Is the L Lens such a clear winner in comparison to the Tamron? Even if price is not in issue - would I be considered by Photogs here to be throwing away good money?

When you take price out of the equation, it's an absolute no-brainer.

[LightRules]

Is the L Lens such a clear winner in comparison to the Tamron? Even if price is not in issue - would I be considered by Photogs here to be throwing away good money?

In terms of IQ, good copies of each are fairly close vis-a-vis resolving power and even contrast (I know L-fans will dispute this especially). But the L does offer some "perks" that this Di does not give you (viz., ring USM/FTM, weathersealing, much better build-feel, guaranteed future compatibility, 24mm wide). So I don't think you'd be "throwing away good money", not at all, if these "extras" are important to you. There is no free lunch.

[Canonised]

Thanks Canonic but a bird in hand is worth two in the bushes. New 24-70L is about US$280 more here than the one offered to me. I am not wishing to hunt down a lens when one nice one is offered to me at a price locally considered to be fair and in good condition with warranty.

You comment about the full frame issue is well taken. Something I forgot altogether. I am considering to have a FF (possibly a used 5D) in the near future and the L lens may be the right choice afterall.

The weight and size is indeed another issue for the L but if the output quality is clearly better then I will be willing to live with it. I will miss the Tamron for its small size and weight esp for travel shoots.

AGAIN - I am hoping for comments from other ex-Tamron 28-75mm owners who have the L lens to share their thoughts and comments about ownership and comparative experience of the two lenses.

Thanks


Well, being Canonised, you still may look for a 28-70/2.8L USM
(senior model of 24-70). This lens is still available on the market. And you may try ebay or other auctions.

You probably won't see too much difference with regards to Tamron on a cropped sensor (10D/20D/30D). But it becomes obvious on a full-frame DSLR (1Ds Mk II and 5D). Moreover, it's got very nice bokeh and very useful Macro ability. There are only two CONs: price and weight.

[condyk]

Why buy a lens to cover a range you don't use much and to replace a perfectly capable lens that can cover you when you need that range. I also wonder why the seller is wanting rid after a short time. Beware!

[Canonised]

Thanks Jojo
Indeed the Tamron is a real joy for the price paid. The sharpness and contrast is excellent - although the colour is a little pale for my taste but that can be photoshopped.

Your comments are well taken as well. I suspect that its build quality will see the L lens last a whole lot longer than the Tamron. Looks like I am going to need an antidote soon for the L virus before it gets embedded too deep! :)

In terms of IQ, good copies of each are fairly close vis-a-vis resolving power and even contrast (I know L-fans will dispute this especially). But the L does offer some "perks" that this Di does not give you (viz., ring USM/FTM, weathersealing, much better build-feel, guaranteed future compatibility, 24mm wide). So I don't think you'd be "throwing away good money", not at all, if these "extras" are important to you. There is no free lunch.

[gasrocks]

I sold my Tamron 28-75 after getting the Canon 24-105L. Main reason, I was missing shots with the Tamron since it turns the wrong way.

[Canonised]

Hi Condyk
You hit it on the nail! If I did not have the Tamron in my arsenal then it would be a quick purchase. So why in the world would I get the L then? So hence my motivation to start this thread.

The reseller (who is a professional photographer as well as working at a local respected retailer as senior salesperson) who offered to me (whom I trust implicitly) informed me that he held the lens for me as he knew I was after bargains. I asked him about whether there is any risk of problems with the lens he assured me that there isn't and the seller sold it to acquire a 24-105mm from him.

So far all the post does not really reflect a distinct/dramatic improvement of the quality of output of the L over the Tamron. So the pull is more on the quality of build and compatibility with a FF body.

Thanks.

Why buy a lens to cover a range you don't use much and to replace a perfectly capable lens that can cover you when you need that range. I also wonder why the seller is wanting rid after a short time. Beware!

[LightRules]

was missing shots with the Tamron since it turns the wrong way.

LOL, sorry Gene I had to laugh... :lol:

[ed rader]

Opps - meant to type f2.8 in subject line.

Hi

I have just been offered a 4 month old 24-70mm f2.8L at US$1100 and I am tempted. However, I have a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 and have been happy with it (albeit that I do not use it that often).

On my 20D the zoom in that range does not seem all that useful - so I am tad hesitant in buying a lens I would not use all that often. I note with interest that many Canon photographers swear by the this L lens. I may be missing something here so personal advise is most welcome!

I would be most interested from those who had replaced their Tamron 28-75 with a Canon 24-70L about their experience.

Thanks!

the canon is a better lens, imo. but it better be for the price difference. if you are happy with the tamron and you don't use the range much i would save my money.

if it were me i would go for the canon (love that range) but i would also get a better price.

the tamron is is very sharp, but the canon is sharper at f2.8. the canon also has much better color and contrast and -- very important to me -- begins at 24mm instead of 28mm. also, and this is very important for sports shooters, the canon AFs much quicker.

the tamron is smaller and much lighter and the canon is a beast with a huge flower pot hood :D .

ed rader

[ed rader]

Why buy a lens to cover a range you don't use much and to replace a perfectly capable lens that can cover you when you need that range. I also wonder why the seller is wanting rid after a short time. Beware!

i met a photographer earlier this month at the carmel river state beach and he was using a 24-70 on a silver d-rebel....which i thought was an odd combination.

we got to talking and he said his friend gave him the lens after buying a 24-105.

i also chuckled to myself because the fellow did not have the hood on the 24-70 :D .

ed rader

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Why's the 24-70L on a 300D an odd combination? :| I don't get it.

[Canonised]

on the streets after retail discounts. I just checked.
This seems very high compared to the prices in the US. :cry:

May one day save up and visit US and buy lenses there!

[SuzyView]

If that is the opportunity you have and you have the money, I don't think you'd regret the purchase. In all seriousness, you won't look back.

[Canonic]

Well, I am an ex-Tamron user. It's not that I say this lens is worse. Not at all! It's simply a compromise (well, an excellent one, obviously). And i may assure you, this good glass behaves well. I'm only wishing you to seek for more versatility in terms of 'everyday usage'.

Let's count: perfect focusing in low light conditions, nice bokeh, better Macro (yes, Canon 24-70 and 28-70 are provided with this option).

Please be sure these lenses have excellent contrast and so called 'plasticity' (the term I hate, but it usually means 'better looking' pix).

Dixi.

---

You wrote:
Thanks Canonic but a bird in hand is worth two in the bushes. New 24-70L is about US$280 more here than the one offered to me. I am not wishing to hunt down a lens when one nice one is offered to me at a price locally considered to be fair and in good condition with warranty.

You comment about the full frame issue is well taken. Something I forgot altogether. I am considering to have a FF (possibly a used 5D) in the near future and the L lens may be the right choice afterall.

The weight and size is indeed another issue for the L but if the output quality is clearly better then I will be willing to live with it. I will miss the Tamron for its small size and weight esp for travel shoots.

AGAIN - I am hoping for comments from other ex-Tamron 28-75mm owners who have the L lens to share their thoughts and comments about ownership and comparative experience of the two lenses.

[ed rader]

Why's the 24-70L on a 300D an odd combination? :| I don't get it.

odd because i usually see consumer lenses on the first digital rebels. remember, the lens was given to the guy....he didn't buy it.

OTOH, i bought the 24-105 while i had my 300d but my camera was black so it looked like every other canon pro (or semi pro) body.

but when i bought the lens i knew i would be upgrading bodies soon.

ed rader

[MrChad]

You said earlier you don't use your 28-75 Tamron very often, I guess I'd assume if you don't use the Tammy you will also rarely use the Canon L.

Do you avoid the Tamron for any specific reason that the L would help resolve?

My 24-70L is the most used lens I own, but I used this focal length a lot prior to my L as well.

[Canonic]

May I try to explain? Thanks.

Tammy is a nice built, good quality and relatively cheap lens. It's not too bulky, too heavy and too costy. Still it makes beautiful photos. The same is Canon 24-70/2.8L USM.

Let's say we are just 'beef eaters' (no scotch please ), not chiefs. We'll say this steak is tasty, and the other is the same as well. But the second one is dressed with some spice, or sauce, or whatever. Let's assume 'spice', 'sauce' and 'whatever' mean 'nice bokeh', 'good contrast', 'better color saturation' in terms of specific optical quality.

Tamron is good. But Canon 24-70 is just better. Sometimes the difference is hard to catch. But it still exists. That's it.

Sorry for break-in.