Best alternative to Canon 24-70 F2.8

[Mthorpe_Davies]

I would like one of these but the wife acceptance factor is low, she would kill me if I spent this much. So I've narrowed my search down to the following lens.

Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF
Tamron SP AF28-75MM F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical
Tokina AT-X 287 AF PRO SV 28-70 f/2.8

Any thought's on these. Who uses them and what do you like or dislike about them.

I would have thought Canon would have come up with a cheaper 24-70, I've go the 17-40, 70-200 & 300 f4.0 lens so it would make sense for them to offer say a 24-80 f4.0. Is this a good idea or what.

[drisley]

I've been wondering this too. Beside the cost of the 24-70L, I would say it's size and weight are 2 reasons I steer clear of that lens.

From everything I've read over the past few months, I would say the best alternative is the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 by quite a margin.

The only direct image comparison I've seen between the Tamron and the Canon 24-70L was here:
http://64.42.93.248/Lubow/tamron-canon-test.htm

The Tamron actually wins those 2 comparisons.

I saw a couple comparisions here with the Sigma, and the Tamron is much sharper. Plus you dont have to worry about compatibility problems with newer cameras with the Tamron.

Also, there are some great threads in this forum already:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28630&highlight=tamron

Pictures here:
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/tamron/sp_af_2875_28_xr_di

[Scotty G]

I have had the tamron for a few months now and an quite happy with it. It lives on the camera. I don't have any experiance with the canon L but have read that the tamron comes in a close second at way less than half the price.
Good Luck,
Scotty

[mjordan]

If any non-Canon lens beats the Canon 24-70 2.8L lens in tests, then I would be very suspisious of those tests. Either someone didn't know what they were doing when they tested them or were trying to make the other brand look better on purpose. There might be some lenses that will come close to the quality of the Canon 24-70 2.8L, but if there is a lens available that can beat it, then it's probably a lens nobody could afford.

Mike

[CyberDyneSystems]

... or it's the 28-70mm f/2.8 L used for about 600.00-700.00

:)

Well O-kay it doesn't beat it.. but it's damn close and half the price :)

[mjordan]

That's a Canon lens. I did say non-Canon. :lol:

Mike

[Cordell]

If any non-Canon lens beats the Canon 24-70 2.8L lens in tests, then I would be very suspisious of those tests. Either someone didn't know what they were doing when they tested them or were trying to make the other brand look better on purpose. There might be some lenses that will come close to the quality of the Canon 24-70 2.8L, but if there is a lens available that can beat it, then it's probably a lens nobody could afford.

Mike

Excuse me MIKE, but have you used any lens other than the Canon 24-70 2.8L? I'm sure you used ALL of them for you to make this statement. Right?

Even if a lens is only close behind the Canon, at less than half the price where is the value in spending 3 times more when everything about photography is subjective? This is espeically true if we are talking about artistic photography. There are way to many things to consider to make a blanket statement like that.

By the way, my opinion is to avoid the mentioned Tokina. It is okay, but I would prefer something else. The Tokina is a little soft at 2.8 in my "subjective opinion". It is a good lens, but for a few dollars more look at the Tamron and Sigma.

Cordell

[Malaxos1]

I have the Tamron and really like it a lot. I have had it since October...Dean

[Olegis]

I also vote for the Tamron. Here are few samples (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=226325#226325).

[mjordan]

Cordell, my comment was in regards to the statement that a off brand was better than the Canon 24-70 2.8L. It has nothing to do with price. There are a lot of lenses that are marginal that are cheaper and some that do pretty good that are cheaper. A lot of people can't afford the better glass of the Canon "L" lenses and have to settle for something less expensive.

BUT, to say a off brand non-Canon lens did better is a different matter. I will say that whoever did the test didn't do a very good job of testing. Or they were trying to sell the off brands or trying to justify buying them at the lower price verses the Canon lens.

And to answer your question, yes I have tried a lot of lenses and I have done a lot of research trying to find cheaper quality lenses. Yes, a few do come close or even match some of the quality "L" glass... in certain settings and usages. I use my lenses to their fullest. I use them wide open and all the way stopped down. I use them from shortest zoom to the fullest. I need consistancy and quality accross all this range. Those that don't can save money by buying cheaper lenses. But over the years I've found that it is true that you get what you pay for.

Mike

[SnJPhoto]

As was once said in a movie.......


"Have you ever thought of switching to decaf----many brands are as tasty as regular coffee..."

Relax guys....this is only an opinion forum......


Just to add something of value....I have had the 24-70 Sigma and 28-70L and 24-70L. I enjoyed all three lenses, and the only reason I don't have the 24-70 Sigma is beacuse I gave it to a friend since I had enought lenses already. The sigma seemd a bit slower to focus (motor wise) and had slightly more noise (audible) but was very nice for optical qualities.


Relax.....take a deep breath......

[Andy_T]

BUT, to say a off brand non-Canon lens did better is a different matter. I will say that whoever did the test didn't do a very good job of testing. Or they were trying to sell the off brands or trying to justify buying them at the lower price verses the Canon lens.
Mike

Well, Mike,

if it is your firm conviction that any lens test in which a non-Canon lens comes out better than an 'L' is either the result of incompetence or of deliberate deceit....

...better don't read any tests of the Sigma 120-300/2.8 :lol:

Best regards,
Andy

[CyberDyneSystems]

... or any test between ANY Canon 300mm Zoom vs> the Sigma's 120-300mm f/2.8 OR 100-300mm f/4... :wink:

[mjordan]

Andy, my comments were only about the Canon 24-70 2.8L. The other lenses will have to fend for themselves. :wink:

And though it might come as a shock to some, yes there are reviewers out there that aren't completely honest in their reviews or their tests... usually because they have some vested interest in their brand looking better. And I'm sure it won't be as much as a shock as finding out about the personal interest of some reviewers, but there are people that don't know how to do proper lens tests either. We all saw that during the 10D back focus feeding freenzy last year.

And I could mention a few other things out there, but I don't want to over shock the systems of some of the readers on here. :lol:


Oh, I will agree that it's all my opinion... but I do stand by it. :wink:

Mike

[Tapeman]

I have the 28-70 2.8L & love it.

Take your time & buy the best quality lenses.

You will not need to upgrade for the minor changes in focal length.

If you have a budget, (as I do) plan to buy only lenses that you will keep longer than the bodies.

[saikidesign]

Hi Davies, I have a Tamaron lens and I'm happy with that, I'm not a professional photographer and I think the results are very good. Now, If you are a professional photographer and you will be dealing with weather (light rain or dust, for xample) add an extra dollar per shot and get a Canon "L" series lens. I think youwill be happy for a long time. My Tamaron is good but does not have the "weather and dust" proof and it can be damaged anytime, since most of my photographys are done outdoors. The Supersonic AF is someting else (as probably you know) and Tamarom is a bit slower. An other thing, If you are taking photos looking up (45 degrees or so) you will notice that it get hard to turn the zoom out. It can be nothing but it looks to me that all the gear inside are having a hard time to "lift" all the glass inside. Horizontal and looking down, no problem. I just bought a Canon 70-200 f1:2.8 L IS USM (you can call me crazy). It is a bigger lens but I have no problems to look up zoom in and out and the results are amazing. It all depends, you budget, a fight with your wife, andd what you really want. After all it is all about money. My experience can tell one thing, wait , save some extra cash and go with "L", if you really like good stuff. But plese, do not let me change your mind. You are asking me about these 3 lens and I know oly one in your list. I just wish you luck and I werever you pick I hope is the best for you. Regards, Oswaldo.