Does 24-70mm f/2.8 L worth the money?

[carbotex]

I'm considering these two lenses:

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L ($1300)
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di AF ($330)

Here are the reviews on Popular Photography Magazine website. (http://www.popphoto.com):
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L (http://www.popphoto.com/assets/download/782003105411.pdf)
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di AF (http://www.popphoto.com/assets/download/8212003124116.pdf)

The test results show that Tamron's lens performs as good as Canon's. Has anyone done a side by side comparison? If you already own Tamron lens, please tell me what do you think.

carbotex

[Belmondo]

I'm not familiar with the Tamron Lens. I do have the 24-70 f/2.8L, however, and it is simply the finest lens I own. I should point out that I own a few other 'L' lenses, and this one is the sharpest. I also find it the most useful for all-around shooting.

As I said, I'm not familiar with the Tamron, but I would be very surprised if it's as good -I'm sure we'd have heard a lot more about it if it was. All I can suggest is, if there's a store near you that sells both, try them on your camera and see which works best for you.

[ShaneR]

I just got the Tamron before Christmas. It's probably not as good as the Canon, but I doubt the Canon is 4x better. The Tamron is very sharp and small. Here's a full crop from a jpg, shot at f2.8, no processing.

http://www.667westmarket.com/IMG_1892.jpg

So - if you can afford the Canon and not put yourself in the poor house, get it, but don't feel like you have an inferior product if you get the Tamron.

[Scottes]

I don't have a comparison to post but I don't think this is that sharp a photo. I'd have to think that L would blow this way - I know my 70-200 L would.

But I am *not* saying that the L is worth the extra $1000! $330 for that Tamron XR seems like a very good deal. But it's not the same quality.

[carbotex]

If this is not too much trouble, I would like to see some samples from both Tamron and Canon at 2.8, indoor natural light and indoor tungsten light.

I understand sometimes 10% more performance worth 4x the price. A lot of people say that Tamron is soft at 2.8, I want to know how soft is "soft".

[CyberDyneSystems]

Canon's can be soft @ f/2.8 as well,. but NOT in the center,.

By some Canon marvel of engineering most of there L f/2.8 lenses are super sharp at the center even at f/2.8. They soften towards the outer edges... the edges teend to be just as sharp at f/5.6 or f/8.... (I am generalizing but it is amazing how consistant this is with there f/2.8s)

The beauty of this is that you will allwys get a sharp image at the cneter of the action,.

AND,. when using a 10D or other digital with a 1.6X crop factor... ALL YOU GET IS THE SHARP CENTER! (well mostly) but the softest parts are lopped off :)

[dtrayers]

You can check the survey database of EOS lenses here:

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/lsurveyEOS.htm

You'll find that the 20-70L is rated at 4.48 (out of 5) and the Tamron is rated at 3.46. However, the focus speed of the Canon is rated as fast, whereas the Tamron is rated as slow. That may or may not be a factor for you.

[CoolToolGuy]

I have the Canon, and I have two comments:
-The 24-70 is one big and heavy lens. It takes a 77mm filter, so you can extrapolate from there. It performs well, but you know you're holding it.
-Due to the diameter and the length, the built-in flash (certainly on the Drebel, and probably on the 10D as well) is useless due to shadowing in the lower portion of the frame. This makes it slightly less desireable as a normal, walkaround lens.

Nonetheless, the 24-70 'L' is my new default normal lens.

Have Fun
Rick

[DaveG]

I'm considering these two lenses:

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L ($1300)
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di AF ($330)

Here are the reviews on Popular Photography Magazine website. (http://www.popphoto.com):
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L (http://www.popphoto.com/assets/download/782003105411.pdf)
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di AF (http://www.popphoto.com/assets/download/8212003124116.pdf)

The test results show that Tamron's lens performs as good as Canon's. Has anyone done a side by side comparison? If you already own Tamron lens, please tell me what do you think.

The problem with these types of tests is that it tests NEW lenses. I'd like to read a test of these two lenses when they're five years old. You can test sharpness and so forth now, but you can't test durability, and that's my guess as to where the brand X companies cut costs.

carbotex

[carbotex]

I will use the 420ex or 550ex if i need a flash. But I prefer natural lighting... So what I'm really looking for is speed (at least f2.8 ) and sharpness :)

Good point DaveG, but hopefully by five years I have enough money to buy any L lenses I want to :twisted:

[dtrayers]

.
-Due to the diameter and the length, the built-in flash (certainly on the Drebel, and probably on the 10D as well) is useless due to shadowing in the lower portion of the frame

Actually, the DRebel flash is higher than the 10D, so if you get shadow with the Drebel, you certainly will get shadow with a 10D. Incidently, I don't have this particular lens, but I have tested my 70-200 f/4 with the internal flash on my DRebel and there isn't any shadow.

[scottbergerphoto]

I'll just echo the positive comments about the Canon 24-70 f/2.8. It's my main walking around lens. I like the feel of it, and it gets respect in crowds. Here are some shots made with it: http://www.pbase.com/scottbergerphoto/brooklyn_nyc
You can also look at this review:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-70-review.shtml
Enjoy whichever one you choose.
Scott

[carbotex]

Correct me if I'm wrong, if I don't print larger than 8x10, the Tamron should be sharp enough for me.

I'm leaning toward the Tamron, the main reason is because of the price. Another reason is I don't have "professional" level grade eyes :shock: , to tell the diff between Tamron and Canon in image quality. The images they produce are about the same according what my eyes tell my brain. Maybe I need to upgrade "L" lens for my eyes :lol:

Thanks for the sample scott.

[DaveG]

I will use the 420ex or 550ex if i need a flash. But I prefer natural lighting... So what I'm really looking for is speed (at least f2.8 ) and sharpness :)

Good point DaveG, but hopefully by five years I have enough money to buy any L lenses I want to :twisted:

Perhaps. If the other lens IS durable you're OK. If it isn't (and who knows) here's what you'll have in five years if you buy the L lens now: a) a working lens and b) five years of images taken with a Canon L series lens.

[carbotex]

True. But the Tamron also comes with 6 years warranty. What is the warranty on L lenses?

[carbotex]

Hi ShaneR:

Do you get consistent sharp focus picture with your Tamron? I read some review saying that the AF is not consistent. Is it true?

[ShaneR]

I haven't had any problems so far, but the lense is only 2 weeks old. Out of about 300 or so shots, maybe 10 have been blurry. Keep in mind that all have been inside (Ohio winters suck) with shutter speeds around 1/30 - 1/60 and apertures around 2.8 - 3.6. I am convinced the blurry shots were caffeine and alcohol induced shaking :D

The only comparisons I have are to a Sigma cheap 28-80 (much sharper) and to the Canon 50 f1.8 (about the same or slightly better). My goal wasn't to get tack sharp L level shots (too cost prohibitive) but to have a decent, reliable, light, sharp lense for work purposes.

[mrwickham]

Just one more opinion. I had a chance to play with both lenses, I found the Canon 24-70 to have a much much better build quality about it. The Tamron felt "cheaper" and was certainly noiser when focusing. I purchased the Canon. Final reason - once the pain of the price tag is over I will never regret buying that lens. If I had purchased the Tamron, I would have always wondered if the Canon was better and might end up selling the Tamron at a reduced price and buying the Canon anyway, thus spending more money in the long run.

The solid comfortable feel, quick quiet focus made me select it. The Tamron had a rough uncomfortable grip, IMHO.

Best advice - get your hands on both and feel/see for yourself - the photo quality will be hard to notice. However that little voice in your head is not so easily quieted.

[mrwickham]

Just one more opinion. I had a chance to play with both lenses, I found the Canon 24-70 to have a much much better build quality about it. The Tamron felt "cheaper" and was certainly noiser when focusing. I purchased the Canon. Final reason - once the pain of the price tag is over I will never regret buying that lens. If I had purchased the Tamron, I would have always wondered if the Canon was better and might end up selling the Tamron at a reduced price and buying the Canon anyway, thus spending more money in the long run.

The solid comfortable feel, quick quiet focus made me select it. The Tamron had a rough uncomfortable grip, IMHO.

Best advice - get your hands on both and feel/see for yourself - the photo quality will be hard to notice. However that little voice in your head is not so easily quieted.

[carbotex]

Well, I better off stay away from those "L" lenses then. Because my little voice always tells me to get the best. Hopefully I can live with the second from the best lens.

I don't expect to get the same built quality, the smoothness of the motor, etc. from Tamron. As long as it works on my 300D, and gives me excellent image quality, then I will be happy. You get what you pay for.

[BDM]

[quote="carbotex"]I'm considering these two lenses:

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L ($1300)
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di AF ($330)

Here are the reviews on Popular Photography Magazine website. (http://www.popphoto.com):
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L (http://www.popphoto.com/assets/download/782003105411.pdf)
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di AF (http://www.popphoto.com/assets/download/8212003124116.pdf)

The test results show that Tamron's lens performs as good as Canon's. Has anyone done a side by side comparison? If you already own Tamron lens, please tell me what do you think.

I just purchased the 24-70 f:2.8 L for my Drebel. I received it last Friday and so have no real experience with it yet. I will say it is big and heavy but is built like a tank. It is much smoother mechanically than the kit lens which came with the Drebel.

Although maybe not a valid comparison, I do have the AF 70-300 mm F:4-5.6 LD macro Tamaron lens. It is not a bad performer. But its build quality does not appear equal to the Canon L. That could have implications after a few years of use.

Is the Canon worth the extra cost? Only you can answer that. My intent in purchasing the Drebel instead of the D10 was to get into digital photography with a camera which was able to take pictures of a quality equal to the D10 but at a lower price so I could then acquire L glass lenses. And so I admit to being biased. I have been a Nikon film camera shooter for a long time with a fair number of high end Nikor lenses, none of which will work on a Canon. But after having experience with top end lenses, it is hard to settle for less.

That being said, I remember attending a workshop with John Shaw a number of years ago. His nature photograpnhy is top rate. He had many shots taken with a very inexpensive Nikon E lens which were tack sharp. So if the Tamron will fit your needs, by all means you should get it. I've generally found that the difference between the price levels tends to be mostly felt in build quality and performance at the extremes, ie. wide open or at the ends of the focal length range.

Bruce

[BDM]

[quote="carbotex"]I'm considering these two lenses:

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L ($1300)
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di AF ($330)

Here are the reviews on Popular Photography Magazine website. (http://www.popphoto.com):
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L (http://www.popphoto.com/assets/download/782003105411.pdf)
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di AF (http://www.popphoto.com/assets/download/8212003124116.pdf)

The test results show that Tamron's lens performs as good as Canon's. Has anyone done a side by side comparison? If you already own Tamron lens, please tell me what do you think.

I just purchased the 24-70 f:2.8 L for my Drebel. I received it last Friday and so have no real experience with it yet. I will say it is big and heavy but is built like a tank. It is much smoother mechanically than the kit lens which came with the Drebel.

Although maybe not a valid comparison, I do have the AF 70-300 mm F:4-5.6 LD macro Tamaron lens. It is not a bad performer. But its build quality does not appear equal to the Canon L. That could have implications after a few years of use.

Is the Canon worth the extra cost? Only you can answer that. My intent in purchasing the Drebel instead of the D10 was to get into digital photography with a camera which was able to take pictures of a quality equal to the D10 but at a lower price so I could then acquire L glass lenses. And so I admit to being biased. I have been a Nikon film camera shooter for a long time with a fair number of high end Nikor lenses, none of which will work on a Canon. But after having experience with top end lenses, it is hard to settle for less.

That being said, I remember attending a workshop with John Shaw a number of years ago. His nature photograpnhy is top rate. He had many shots taken with a very inexpensive Nikon E lens which were tack sharp. So if the Tamron will fit your needs, by all means you should get it. I've generally found that the difference between the price levels tends to be mostly felt in build quality and performance at the extremes, ie. wide open or at the ends of the focal length range.

Bruce