WalkAroundLens: Tamron 28-75/2.8 vs Canon 28-135/3.5-5.6IS?? [Archive]

piku

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 02:29

just got my 50mm f1.8 today along w/ the kit lens. the 50mm would be great for use in low-light/indoor/portrait shots for me i think. but i'd like to get somewhat of a better "walk-around" lens other than my kit lens (18-55), with a better zoom if possible--something most people here use other than the 50mm.

suggestions??? TIA

dtrayers

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 02:59

I used to use my 24-85 as a general 'walkabout' lens. Lately though, it's been the 17-40. Maybe because the 17-40 is my most recent lens, or I've been taking snapshots of a house I'm building, and 17mm is more useful for indoor and exterior shots.

I'd recommend the 24-85mm. It's not too expensive and it fairly small. Adorama has a used one right now in 'demo' condition for $269US.

A lot of people like the 28-135 IS as a general lens. It's more expensive, bigger, and doesn't go as wide, but has IS.

DReb-MO

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 03:07

I might suggest the 28-135 IS USM lens. I find this takes care of about 80% of my shooting needs. There are times I want a wider or longer lens but this covers most of my shooting needs. Reading the reviews I and many others felt as though this lens was quite and bargain as it can be had for about $400.

PekkaM

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 03:35

"Walkaround" is hugely subjective. I use 70-200f/2.8L.

piku

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 03:46

i'm just a dSLR/dREBEL enthusiast w/ not a lot of $. so Ls are out of the question for a veeery long time =p

how 'bout the tamron 28-75mm f2.8 in terms of price/performance ratio? a good comparison to it? ...omg, never thought picking a lens is such a big deal ^^

MarkH

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 03:55

My 'walk around' lens is my 28-135 IS, I find it very good in most situations. There have been times when I wished I had a 28-300 L for a walk around lens to save a lot of swapping.

drisley

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 04:04

I've heard alot of great feedback about the Tamron 28-75mm lens.
It apparetnly makes the kit lens feel like toy, and has optical quality that rivals the 28-70L, especially at F4 and higher.
The only lens that comes close in that price and focal range is the 28-135mm from Canon, but I've heard the optical quality is much better on the Tamron.
Also, the Tamron has a 6yr warranty.

This guy has 2 pages of full-sized images at various apertures so you can judge for yourself.
http://eos-d.axisz.jp/contents/28-75html/index01.html
http://eos-d.axisz.jp/contents/28-75html/index02.html

There are many more examples here:
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/tamron/sp_af_2875_28_xr_di

Patrick 10D

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 04:12

"Walkaround" is hugely subjective. I use 70-200f/2.8L.

What he said.

I also use 24-70 2.8L as a walk around lens, depending on where I am walking around.

RichardtheSane

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 04:33

I have the Tamron 28-75 and it is my walkabout lens.

Light, sharp, fast, sharp, ok AF, sharp, good range, did I mention it is sharp?

A great lens for the money :)

drisley

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 04:53

Richard,
when you say "ok AF", how does it compare to other lenses, like say, the kit lens (if you have the 300D)?

Also, is the lens sharp? :wink:

Tom W

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 05:08

Depends on how much money you want to spend.

For $225, you can get the underrated Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5.
For $300, you can get the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 (the extra 4 mm on the wide end makes a very big difference, especially on the smaller sensors like the 10D and digital Rebel)
For $350, you can get the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 lens. This one is pretty well liked, though you sacrifice zoom range for wide aperture.
For $400, you can get the Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 with Image Stabilization. This is a well-liked lens.
For $680, you can get the excellent Canon 17-40 f/4L wide zoom.
for $700-900, you can get a used Canon 28-70 f/2.8L zoom.
For $1200, you can get the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 zoom.

That's not all that are available, but those lenses readily come to mind for me.

RikWriter

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 05:37

I reccommend the Canon 28-105.

CGNKlaus

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 05:39

I've got a Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5,6. Here in Cologne/Germany I paid 149 Euro's (about 160 US$).

I like it, because I can take pictures esp. of people who don't notice that I do :) So the guys act more naturally and I get better pictures. The price ist perfect.

JoeTampa

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 12:46

Nobody but me seems to like it, but I walk around with the relatively unknown Canon 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 lens. It seems sharp enough for me, and I haven't had any problems with it.

Here's a shot taken with it:

http://www.notablephoto.com/gallery/Travel/4.jpg

- Joe

piku

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 12:58

Tom W

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 13:04

thanks for the reply... i narrowed it down to these...

For $350, you can get the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 lens. This one is pretty well liked, though you sacrifice zoom range for wide aperture.
For $400, you can get the Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 with Image Stabilization. This is a well-liked lens.

low-light conditions, i heard that the tamron performs well??? i find myself going to concerts or shows where sometimes they dont allow flash (that and considering that i dont think i'ma buy a 420/550 anytime soon).

pros/cons of the lenses above excluding the ~$50 diff. and ~5yr. diff in warranty???

TIA.

Well, considering that you have the 50/1.8, you have a low light lens that will work a good deal better than even the Tamron. If you already had a telephoto, I'd say that the Tamron is a good choice, but since you can't go long, I think that the 28-135 would be a better choice. The Image Stabilization will help a bit in moderately low light situations, but when it gets pretty dark, that 50/1.8 is the logical choice.

Cadwell

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 13:10

I have both the Tamron 28-75mm and the EF 28-135mm. The image quality from the Tamron is superior to that of the Canon and the Tamron is better in low light. The Canon has the advantage in terms of focal length.

I can only advise you based on my own experience - if I want to use a lens in that focal length range I reach for the Tamron. The Canon doesn't rate a place in my camera bag anymore.

piku

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 13:37

Tom W

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 13:50

Well, considering that you have the 50/1.8, you have a low light lens that will work a good deal better than even the Tamron. If you already had a telephoto, I'd say that the Tamron is a good choice, but since you can't go long, I think that the 28-135 would be a better choice. The Image Stabilization will help a bit in moderately low light situations, but when it gets pretty dark, that 50/1.8 is the logical choice.

well...thats the thing, i want to have a "walk around" lens; so i dont have to bring my kit and the 50mm. here's an instance of where i just want to only use one attached "walk around" lens

night-time concert, where i dont know how far i'm off the stage...
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=242957#242957

any new suggestions derived from this??? TIA.

keep em coming =p i'm learning a lot.

I'm normally a zoom-type guy, but if you shoot these types of scenarios frequently (night and/or dark stage shows), a 100 mm f/2.0 prime might be a very good choice at the price you're looking at. It has a whole stop more light collection than the f/2.8 and might get you enough magnification to get some really nice shots at shows like this, provided you aren't sitting too far away. I'm just guessing, but I'd say that you will get roughly a frame-filling full body images of a single performer at around 40-45 feet from the stage, shooting in portrait (vertical) position with 100 mm of lens on the 10D or the Digital Rebel.

Bruce Hamilton

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 14:17

Murphy's Law... The best "walk around" lens is the one not on your camera. :lol:

msvadi

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 14:22

Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 looks very attractive. I really missed zoom flexibility last time I was taking pictures. I cannot afford 24-70L, and I want f/2.8, so, may be Tamron is the solution.

Chako

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 16:13

hmmm...my walk around lens is the 100-300mm Canon. Mind you, I am after birds. :wink:

RichardtheSane

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 16:54

Richard,
when you say "ok AF", how does it compare to other lenses, like say, the kit lens (if you have the 300D)?

Also, is the lens sharp? :wink:

I don't have the 300D so don't have the kit lens, however I used one a while back and I do think the AF is on a par with the kit lens. I have a 10D and it does get the focus bang on every time, but not as quick as my other lenses. If it focused like my 17-40L I would say good AF :)

I suppose I am picky, because the rest of my focal range is covered by L glass though... the tamron was designed to keep me going till I could afford the canon 24-70 L but I'm not going to bother with that now because the Tamron gives very good results.

piku

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 17:00

woah not to go off to a different tanget =p

but, if i can only have one lens, and would like to have a wide range of compositions (low-light, wide, zoom, etc), is it right to assume that the tamron will cover this?

TIA.

msvadi

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 17:05

I have a couple of questions regarding Tamron 28-75.

It has internal focusing, so the front end does not rotate when focusing, is that correct?

I'm reading dpreview discussions of Tamron 28-75, and there are many complaints from people who have bad copies - the lens is soft at f/2.8. I wonder if it's a common problem indeed, or, dpreview guys overstate the problem.

piku

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 17:11

wowsa... so only autofocus? geez--i might as well get the canon aye?

Harry Settle

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 18:00

I have the Sigma 24-135 2.8 for what I consider a good walk around lens.

Tom W

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 18:02

wowsa... so only autofocus? geez--i might as well get the canon aye?

the Tamron can focus auto or manual. I'm not sure if you can focus manually while in Auto, like you can with the USM lenses. By internal focusing, I believe Msvadi is talking about whether the front element moves when focusing - not that the entire mechanism is inside the lens. Note that there is a focus ring on the lens, towards the front. I believe that the front does NOT rotate since the marker dot is on the front part of the lens. Just the ring and internal mechanism rotate.

piku

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 18:37

ok, so going back to my top 2 picks... the "Tamron SP AF28-75mm f2.8 XR DI" vs the "Canon EF28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS".

so if you were stranded in an island, and can only have one lens, and need to shoot a variety of wide/zoom/low-light/(sometimes no-flash events) pics--which will be the overall winner???

TIA.

Tom W

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 18:52

Well, I don't think you'd go too far wrong with either one, based on what others say about them. Both lenses have a good reputation. The fast Tamron is more useful in low light, but the 28-135 has advantages with a longer focal length and image stabilization (which helps in low light as well, but won't freeze action).

Hopefully, someone else who has experienced both lenses will chime in here, but I will say that if you primary concern is low light, get the Tamron. If you know that you'll be shooting a little longer, get the Canon. If its 50/50, flip a coin.

You can always add a telephoto later.

piku

1st of July 2004 (Thu), 20:00

i belive cadwell got the experience

I have both the Tamron 28-75mm and the EF 28-135mm. The image quality from the Tamron is superior to that of the Canon and the Tamron is better in low light. The Canon has the advantage in terms of focal length.

I can only advise you based on my own experience - if I want to use a lens in that focal length range I reach for the Tamron. The Canon doesn't rate a place in my camera bag anymore.

and yah, i mostly find myself taking my camera to indoor family gatherings, friends' party (at night, and other times in clubs), shows in auditoriums, concerts (ie. DMB on 8/28!), etc etc.

besides--i can always crop for now ^^ from LF pics--its freaking HUUUUGE!

oh btw, any reason why the tamron comes w/ 6years warranty vs the canon's 1yr warranty? should i be worried about that?

i also heard (in the case that i upgrade) that the resell value of canon lenses are about 80% compared to the tamron's 50%...is this true? but i guess, i'm not really going to go pro and go w/ 'L' anytime soon; as i just take pics as a hobby during family+friends' events.

ps. cadwell--got any pics to show to compare the two?

slejhamer

2nd of July 2004 (Fri), 03:57

i also heard (in the case that i upgrade) that the resell value of canon lenses are about 80% compared to the tamron's 50%...is this true?

Just try finding a mint-condition used Tamron 28-75 Di at 50% off ... hopefully I will find it before you! :twisted:

Jmurman

2nd of July 2004 (Fri), 04:28

I have the Tamron 28-75 and can say that I am very pleased with all of the results I have had with it.

http://photos.photosig.com/photos/71/79/1257971-583ebaa182ac11c0.jpg

This next photo was also taken (not by me) with the Tamron

http://photos.photosig.com/photos/79/03/1270379-09806ad223158bc3.jpg

piku

2nd of July 2004 (Fri), 11:39

wowsers--the 2nd one was by that tamron? looks damn good.

Jmurman

2nd of July 2004 (Fri), 11:55

wowsers--the 2nd one was by that tamron? looks damn good.

Yes this was taken with the 28-75 2.8Di

You can go to www.photosig.com and under the photo tab you'll find an area where you can search by lens...there are hundreds of lenses listed and the 28-75 2.8Di is listed in a few areas...you'll see what the lens is capable of.

piku

2nd of July 2004 (Fri), 11:57

have you shot this vs the canon 28-135?

Jmurman

2nd of July 2004 (Fri), 12:17

have you shot this vs the canon 28-135?
No I havent. The Canon lenses copupled with photographers that know how to use them are awesome! Some of the photos on photsig.com that rae from Italy shooting streets and such are so frickin good...

check this one out

http://photos.photosig.com/photos/75/97/1269775-f10a32554377c977.jpg

he uses a Canon 17-40 F4L...sweet !

msvadi

2nd of July 2004 (Fri), 12:20

I was checking the prices on Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 The lowest price I could find (yesterday) was $319 at buydig, but it was out of stock. It's still out of stock today, but the price went up to $339.

Cadwell

2nd of July 2004 (Fri), 13:05

ps. cadwell--got any pics to show to compare the two?

Sorry, piku, no. I did have some test shots that I did with the 28-75mm, the 28-135mm and my 17-40L when I first got the Tamron but those got deleted to make room for "real" shots some time ago. I am chronicaly short of disc space on this PC (I am going to replace it next week).

danphoto1

3rd of July 2004 (Sat), 05:38

How abot a tamron 28-300 I use this when I am on vacation and taking my camera and one lens it is small and light weight and can be used in multi situations it also doubles as a macro lens. If I am selective in how I use it I can get some great shots with it, I is not good for low light siuations but works very well in general shooting. sigma also makeas a 28 to 300 but I prefer the Tamron. Please don't get me wrong I have a Canon24-70 f2 and a 70-200 f2 as well as the IS 100-400. But when on vacation for general shoot the tamron holds up well enough and I don't have to keep changing lenses for different shots. I could never uses it shooting a basket ball game indoors without a flash but it does work extreemly well with eithre my 10D or 1D again for general shooting.

Andy_T

3rd of July 2004 (Sat), 06:00

Please don't get me wrong I have a Canon24-70 f2 and a 70-200 f2 as well as the IS 100-400.

WOW :wink:

Two more new Canon lenses (in addition to the 500/1.8, the 85/1.5 and the 70-200/.28 ) ...
... are these a lot more expensive than the 24-70/2.8 and the 70-200/2.8?

Best regards,
Andy

piku

4th of July 2004 (Sun), 04:16

just wondering about a couple of more things...

i've been looking around lately (ie marketplace, and ebay)...i see more ppl selling their canon 28-135 than tamron 28-75. is it because:

-more ppl buy the canon 28-135?
-or, more ppl who bought the tamron actually keep theirs?

another thing, i was leaning towards the canon (60/40) b/c of the additional zoom (ie +60mm) and the IS @ 3.5 cause just in case of low-light/natural-light circumstances. but disregarding the +60mm the canon has over the tamron, am i making the right assumption that @ f3.5--the tamron is still sharper than the canon???

TIA

Liang

4th of July 2004 (Sun), 04:32

Yesterday, that was my first shooting in zoo using Canon 28-135.
I found out that it is soft on wide open. Sharp picture is from f9 onwards.

piku

4th of July 2004 (Sun), 05:23

Yesterday, that was my first shooting in zoo using Canon 28-135.
I found out that it is soft on wide open. Sharp picture is from f9 onwards.

that being said, and experienced first-hand, which would you recommend? ...cause i know you told me that you would probably buy the tamron as well, but what if you had known the above information before buying either--which would it be if you only had to get one and stay w/ that as your only lens? (theoretically speaking that is, since no one can only have one lens in reality ^^ )

TIA

Liang

4th of July 2004 (Sun), 06:30

That's depend on what you going shoot.

For outdoor shooting you might need the extra zoom of Canon.
For indoor you need the speed of Tamron.

If image quality and speed is your main concern, you should go for Tamron. If you want extra zoom and IS, go for Canon.

To answer your question. If I only stay with one lense, I am sure is Tamron. (Because of the better image quality)

Note: I am not saying the image quality of Canon is bad, but just Tamron is better.

Olegis

4th of July 2004 (Sun), 07:19

I have the Tamron and like it (not as my 50mm f/1.8, but still very much). At f/2.8 it is not the sharpest lens in the world, but the results are still very acceptable after some sharpening in post-processing. Below are some samples :

http://www.pbase.com/image/30418622.jpg
Focal Length 75 mm
Exposure Time 1/1000 sec
Aperture f/5.6
ISO Equivalent 200
Exposure Bias -2/3

http://www.pbase.com/image/30418629.jpg
Focal Length 75 mm
Exposure Time 1/125 sec
Aperture f/8
ISO Equivalent 100
Exposure Bias -1

http://www.pbase.com/image/30418618.jpg
Focal Length 63 mm
Exposure Time 1/125 sec
Aperture f/10
ISO Equivalent 100
Exposure Bias -2/3

http://www.pbase.com/image/30418620.jpg
Focal Length 60 mm
Exposure Time 1/320 sec
Aperture f/3.2
ISO Equivalent 200
Exposure Bias -1

The rest of it can be found here (http://www.pbase.com/olegis/flowers&page=all).

piku

4th of July 2004 (Sun), 12:22

any other pics @ wide-open... dark / night-time / very-low light ^^ ?

Liang

4th of July 2004 (Sun), 13:35

Some pictures taken with 28-135 at:
http://www.dgmr.net/Photo/Gallery/20040703-Zoo

Jmurman

5th of July 2004 (Mon), 04:59

any other pics @ wide-open... dark / night-time / very-low light ^^ ?

try this one.

http://photos.photosig.com/photos/87/30/1273087-e9c6cf20e929bd18.jpg

piku

5th of July 2004 (Mon), 10:55

any other pics @ wide-open... dark / night-time / very-low light ^^ ?

try this one.

http://photos.photosig.com/photos/87/30/1273087-e9c6cf20e929bd18.jpg

any w/ people? ^^

Mark Kemp

5th of July 2004 (Mon), 11:45

Nobody but me seems to like it, but I walk around with the relatively unknown Canon 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 lens. It seems sharp enough for me, and I haven't had any problems with it.
- Joe

Joe, how do you find this lens for weight and size. Is it practical as a 'walk around' or is it a bit long and heavy to leave on the camera ?

I was looking at the Sigma 28-200 as a travel lens. Obviously no where near an L in quality, but reputedly not too bad and not particulalry expensive. So it is on my 'wish list' as a something to pack and carry when travelling light, especially on a trip that isn't primarily for photography.