Canon 24-70L compared to the Tamron 28-75

[gplracer]

I have a Tamron 28-75 lens that i like very much. However I find that the images from my Canon 70-200L F4 lens have better contrast, color, and it focuses more consistantly on my kids who are moving very fast. Does this sound reasonable? I know the lens is a lot less than the Tamron. I am now thinking of buying the Canon 24-70L and selling the Tamron. Would I see much of a difference with the Canon? I have read the posts here in the forum and I am just not 100% sure about what to do. This lens will be used on my Canon 20D as a general purpose lens. After reading some posts here, I am starting to think the 24-105L might be a better choice. Thanks for your time.

[dave kadolph]

The canon 24-70 is MUCH better @ locking on fast moving objects than the Tamron. Have not used the 24-105 so I can not comment on AF speed.

Upgraded for indoor sports strictly for AF speed--picture quality is pretty close.

You mention fast moving kids--bright sun 24-105 a great choice--lower light 24-70 is the way to go.

[grinchy]

I have had nothing but a GREAT experience with my 28-75...it is probably my sharpest lens that I have..plus I like the fact it is f/2.8 through out the entire range..great for low light situations...

[cjm]

Never had the Tamron but had the Sigma. The 24-70L is well worth the extra money. But don't expect it to be a magic lens. Usually the "Is my copy a bad copy" threads about the 24-70L are from inexperienced users expecting it to be perfect for its hefty price tag.

I really like my 24-70L though. The build is completely awesome. The AF and MF are WAY better then the third party lenses I have used and the contrast and image quality is very balanced.

It is the same as the 70-200L's in many ways. So it is worth the extra money.
The Tamron used goes for between $300-$400 on messages boards.

[gplracer]

Thanks i really appreciate your opinions. Keep them coming

[grinchy]

here is a link to my gallery of the pics I have taken with the 28-75...

http://www.pbase.com/grinchy247/tamron_2875_f28

[dave kadolph]

Agree with both previous posts--there is a learning curve to the 24-70 and was pretty unsure when we first got it --a lot less room for operator error.

And the Tamron has a permanent spot on the ever changing list of gear--wicked sharp and light with great color and contrast--you will soon get tired of the weight of the L as a walk around.

[runninmann]

I had the Tamron and I was very happy with it. It produced sharp images with nice colors and the focusing speed and sound were never an issue for me. Then, on a whim, I decided to sell it and buy the 24-70 L. The differences were definitely noticeable. As I've stated in previous threads, not only was the focus quiet, it was silent; not only was it fast, it was instantaneous. The colors are "richer" with more contrast. Had I kept the Tamron, I imagine I would have been happy with it for years; but....

[liza]

I, too, was satisfied with the Tamron until I received my 28-70L. The difference, especially in terms of autofocusing speed, was quite noticeable.

[gplracer]

I have gotten lots of good shots with my tamron 28-75. It is just the canon 70-200L that has spoiled me. It is better. So I thought the 24-70L would be better. What about the 70-105L? How does it compare?

[jr_senator]

The 24-70L just pops into focus, like now. Your 20D's best AF comes when using a f/2.8 or faster lens. You may wish to consider this when choosing between the 24-70L and the 24-105L.

[gplracer]

jr_senator, Could you explain that? Thanks!

[Kristy]

I had the Tamron and I was very happy with it. It produced sharp images with nice colors and the focusing speed and sound were never an issue for me. Then, on a whim, I decided to sell it and buy the 24-70 L. The differences were definitely noticeable. As I've stated in previous threads, not only was the focus quiet, it was silent; not only was it fast, it was instantaneous. The colors are "richer" with more contrast. Had I kept the Tamron, I imagine I would have been happy with it for years; but....

Well spoken.... I've had both lenses, LOVED my Tammy...., but yeah, .... what he said

[jr_senator]

jr_senator, Could you explain that? Thanks!

Explain what? which part?

[gplracer]

Your 20D's best AF comes when using a f/2.8 or faster lens - That part. Thanks again for your time.

[MegaTron]

Ive had the Tamron 28-75, Sigma 24-70, and Canon 24-105L.

The Tamron is capable of producing very sharp pictures, but it hunted a little too much in low light, thats why I replaced it. The Sigma was a tad faster focusing than the Tamron, but again, in low light focus was just too slow for my purposes. Both lenses were also a bit slow for tracking subjects, sometimes that split second of speed is the difference between getting the shot, and not getting the shot.

Im very satisfied with my 24-70L, to me it was worth the upgrade.

BTW, I was using the Sigma and the Tamron on a 20D as well.

[radiohead]

Your 20D's best AF comes when using a f/2.8 or faster lens - That part. Thanks again for your time.

I imagine he means that the 20D will have high-precision AF sensors that are only activated when lenses f2.8 or faster are mounted. So, the 24-70/2.8 will be able to take advantage of them and potentially acquire focus quicker than the 24-105/4.

[jr_senator]

With f/2.8 or faster lenses the 20D uses a better AF system, resulting in (I'm told) faster AF with greater accuracy by turning on additional sensoring. I can't speak of first hand experence because all my lenses are f/2.8 or faster, I don't know what slower lenses produce.

[ed rader]

With f/2.8 or faster lenses the 20D uses a better AF system, resulting in (I'm told) faster AF with greater accuracy by turning on additional sensoring. I can't speak of first hand experence because all my lenses are f/2.8 or faster, I don't know what slower lenses produce.

in reality i don't notice any difference. i'm not saying a difference doesn't exist but unless you have very specific needs i would let this one sway my decision one way or the other.

ed rader