Canon 28-135 IS vs. Tamron 28-75 2.8

[leonardhursh]

Question being, if you were shooting a fair bit of indoor theater, which would you choose?

I have the Canon and am thinking of replacing it with the Tamron. Canon 24-70 2.8 is out of budget and I could consider the Sigma 28-75 2.8.

Any input would be appreciated.

Leo

[mttmrphy]

Any low light situation demands a wide aperture. 2.8 for sure if not wider. However, it would be tough for me to part with my 28-135... I love this lens.

[nosquare2003]

Would you consider a prime, say 50/1.8 or a better 50/1.4 with larger aperture?

[mttmrphy]

The range of the lens will depend on where you are shooting from. The only work I have had in a theater was for a rock concert that was well lit. The 50mm was not long enough though. I would imaging that the 70-200 2.8L would be good for most situations.

[leonardhursh]

I have the 50/1.8 already and it works good depending where I'm shooting from. Generally I feel the need to get wider though.

If I do part with my 28-135IS, will I be satisfied with the sharpness, clarity, performance of the 28-75/2.8? How do the two compare in these respects?

Thanks,
Leo

[maderito]

If you are already using the 28-135 IS for indoor theater work, check the EXIF data and see what focal lengths you commonly use. I bet many are longer than 75mm.

I just used a borrowed Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 this weekend for some outdoor shots. It performed as advertised and reviewed - excellent.

However, for what you are doing, I suspect you may want to consider a lens with a longer reach. Most fast zooms are going to be expensive. You could complement your 50 mm with an 85 f/1.8 which is terrific for indoor theater work if you can get reasonably close to the stage.

OTOH - if you primarily shoot wide angle shots, you may be very happy with the Tamron 28-75.

[toglenn]

I just purchased a Tamron 28-75 Di and it is very good. I compared with my Canon 28-105 (which is the same basic formula as the 24-85 and the 28-135) and it produced sharper images. Very good contrast accounts for some of this improvement.

This is my second Tamron Di, I also have the 180 Macro which replaced my Canon 70-200 IS, and they both are great values. Yes the range is limited, but that's probably because extending the range would have limited the image quality as seen with the Canon 28-70 and 24-70.

toglenn

[leonardhursh]

Thanks for the input. I mostly shoot the 50/1.8 as it is a small community theater and I have some freedom to move around.

I am heavily leaning toward the 28-75/2.8 to replace the 28-135 IS and int the future looking at a 70-200/2.8.

Again, thanks for the input,
Leo

[Boosting1Bar]

Any low light situation demands a wide aperture. 2.8 for sure if not wider. However, it would be tough for me to part with my 28-135... I love this lens.

I agree. While I do find it not fast enough once it starts getting dark, this is the lens I keep on my camera for a walkaround lens. I'd have a hard time parting with it.

[Moments]

I purchased the Tamron today and I did a quick test against the Canon 28-135 IS lens I want to replace it due to my concerns about the sharpness while close to, or wide open.

While on a tripod in AV using the timer to fire the camera, I photographed a printed B&W sign. Both lens were tested at 28mm and at 75mm from F22 to wide open. The Tamron had slightly better contrast and was sharper at all settings except for F2.8. F22 was so close I will call that a tie. I also did two exposures on the Canon with the IS activated, one at F22 the other at F3.5 and found something very disturbing. When the IS was active, the images were the worst of all the images. The Tamron AF is slightly slower, but I think I can live with that.

Pete
http://www.memorablemoments.net

[cosiecki]

Both the Tamron and the Canon are 28mm on the wide end. The Canon is f3.5 and the Tamron is f2.8. This is only a 2/3 stop difference over the f3/5 of the 28-135 @28mm. (Since you said you were looking for wide, I will ignore the obvious speed differences at the longer end of the lenses.) This 2/3 stop difference would only get you from 1/20 of a second to 1/30 of a second. Better, but not a super difference. If you were to pick up a prime, say a Sigma 28 f1.8 ($230) you are now looking at a full 2 stops of speed difference. This would get you from that 1/20 to a much improved 1/80. Even better, if 1/20 was an acceptable speed, you could lower your ISO two stops (say from 800 to 200!) I just bought the 28-135 and I REALLY like it. It is, unfortunately, not a panacea for low-light photography. If there are things that move, like people, then you are going to get blur. The nice thing is the stationary objects are nice and sharp. (I picked the IS over a slightly faster lens because the faster lens is only a benefit at wide apertures whereas the IS will help in brighter situations by letting you stop down and still handhold. That's neither here not there.) Even with the 28-135IS I still plan on getting one of Sigma's wide f1.8s (20,24 or 28mm) precicely so I can get that 1/80. I hope that information helps you in your decision making process rather than just making it more comfusing. :)
-Chris

[Headcase650]

I have both the lenses in question. I purchased the 28-135 first. My first impression of this lens was great but as my skills progressed I found it to lack apiture wise and needed a faster/sharper lense and chose the tamron. Now my 28-135 hardly gets used. The tamron is sharper, faster, lighter and I feel the build quality to be better. Advantages of the canon are the longer reach and the IS but IS is outweighed by the constant apiture of the tamorn.

[photog]

Question being, if you were shooting a fair bit of indoor theater, which would you choose?

I have the Canon and am thinking of replacing it with the Tamron. Canon 24-70 2.8 is out of budget and I could consider the Sigma 28-75 2.8.

Any input would be appreciated.



I photograph my son's performances using my 70-200 2.8L IS on my 20D and a monopod (when necessary). I find it works well from nearly anywhere in the auditorium/theatre using the stage lighting by carefully selecting ISO.

[cc10d]

Moments Said:

While on a tripod in AV using the timer to fire the camera, I photographed a printed B&W sign. Both lens were tested at 28mm and at 75mm from F22 to wide open. The Tamron had slightly better contrast and was sharper at all settings except for F2.8. F22 was so close I will call that a tie. I also did two exposures on the Canon with the IS activated, one at F22 the other at F3.5 and found something very disturbing. When the IS was active, the images were the worst of all the images. The Tamron AF is slightly slower, but I think I can live with that.

This lens is not designed to be used IS on when on a tripod. It hunts for the movement and finding none it is creating some. I think the instructions say not to use the IS when tripod mounted.

leonardhursh

I also have both lenses and find each has its place in my usage. I like them both. I would not give one up for the other. It is true that I use the Tamron more than the Canon, BUT the Canon does have more reach and "IS" as well. There are times that is best. The Tamron 75 mm max leaves me with too short of reach occasionally. The Canon also is very responsive to sharpening well and I find it a keeper still. I have several lenses and not one of them is the best for everything but all have times that they are the best for some situation. I would recomend you keep the Canon as well as get the Tamron. FWIW

[tim]

I just did my first theatre shoot today, of a rehersal. I was allowed to use flash, and F4 works ok, though the shots didn't come out great: I might have to use a tripod. Without flash F1.8 was only just enough, 1.4 would be much better.

[Persian-Rice]

You are shooting theatre? I am assuming it is dark? Putting everything else aside, the Tamron will never achieve focus in standard theatre conditions.........

[tim]

During rehersal the normal lights are on. I find the Tamron ok, especially if you use the 550EX, just turn the "flash fires" custom function off.

[Moments]

A few have comented about my testing the 28-135's is feature on a tripod.

(This lens is not designed to be used IS on when on a tripod. It hunts for the movement and finding none it is creating some. I think the instructions say not to use the IS when tripod mounted.)

I guess I did not remember that from the instruction manuel. I bought the lens over two years ago. When I was testing the two lens, I did not intend to test the IS it was an afterthought. The real test bewteen the lens will be next week, when they are both on the job.

In my reasoning for the purchase of the Tamron to replace the Canon is, that while I shoot reception coverage, I usually like set my interior lighting between F6.7 - F 8.0. The Canon, except at 28MM, simply has no dof at those F Stops. and it never really looks sharp. And no, it does not have to do with movement or simply being out of focus. Even groups standing still dont look as sharp as they should. Sure the IS enables you to hand hold at a slower speed, but I now really find the need and options for more dof in many images.

Pete
http://www.memorablemoments.net (http://www.memorablemoments.net/)

[DSMITH131]

85 1.8 and/or 50 1.4 depending on how far away you sit

[cosiecki]

"In my reasoning for the purchase of the Tamron to replace the Canon is, that while I shoot reception coverage, I usually like set my interior lighting between F6.7 - F 8.0. The Canon, except at 28MM, simply has no dof at those F Stops. and it never really looks sharp. And no, it does not have to do with movement or simply being out of focus. Even groups standing still dont look as sharp as they should. Sure the IS enables you to hand hold at a slower speed, but I now really find the need and options for more dof in many images."

Pete, I don't quite understand what you mean. Any lens, regardless of its maximum apature, will have the same DOF at the same focal length. I can see how you would get LESS DOF from the Tamron because you could keep f2.8 for the whole length, but not more. And with either lens, at f8 you are going to have the same shutter speed. In that case, I would think IS would be a benefit.

-Chris

[Tom Reid]

I've used both the 28-135 IS and the 70-200 f2.8 IS. I wanted a good lens for indoor hockey shots in low light. The 28-135 was not good for that but was a very sharp lens when used in any other situation. I returned it within 1 week and purchsed the 70-200 f2.8, it allows me to shoot in low light but denies me the low end of the focal length. I'm not convinced the 70-200 is a sharp a lens as the 28-135.

[Andy_T]

I'm not convinced the 70-200 is a sharp a lens as the 28-135.

If you really have the impression that the 28-135 is sharper than the 70-200/2.8 IS, then you might really check the lens to determine whether it has any problems. This should definitely not be the case, the 70-200/2.8 IS should be significantly sharper than the 28-135 at comparable apertures and focal lengths.

Best regards,
Andy

[Moments]

"Pete, I don't quite understand what you mean. Any lens, regardless of its maximum apature, will have the same DOF at the same focal length. I can see how you would get LESS DOF from the Tamron because you could keep f2.8 for the whole length, but not more. And with either lens, at f8 you are going to have the same shutter speed. In that case, I would think IS would be a benefit."

Chris,
Yes your right. I guess what I really mean to say is that I do not like to shoot wide open, or close to, with the 28-135 durring the reception due to the images looking soft the closer to wide open I go.

I guess I just really do not like the 28-135. While shooting portraits in the studio I have found it to not be very sharp. I always use my 70-200 2.8is for studio portraits.
On the next studio shoot I will test the Tamron against the 70-200.

Pete
http://www.memorablemoments.net