Please help me decide: 24-70L or 28-75 XR Di

[OneManArmy]

Ok, I've read a bunch of reviews. I need a lense that focuses quickly for indoors sports. I have been using a 50mm 1.4 and the low light is great, but the focusing seems a bit slow and I've read the 24-70 focuses very very fast. How does the 28-75 tamron compare to the 50mm 1.4 in focusing speed?

I also need a high end portrait lense in this focal length, which is why I'm looking at these two lenses.

Also, comparing the 28-75 to the 24-70L, I understand the image quality is very comparable. Obvioulsy the Tamron is way cheaper. I wonder though about speed of focusing between the two. If anyone can shed some experience I owuld much appreciate it.

Also, I could care less about the weight; that's a non-issue for me.

Thanks

[Mills]

The 24-70L is a fantastic lens. Don't think you can go wrong with it if you do not mind the $$$$$. I use it all of the time and love it.

[J Rabin]

The Tamron is a fine lens, used in studio or other casual setups. For locking focus, FAST, in low light, the Canon 24-70L is noticeably better. I hated the price, but after using it and getting good results, price was forgotten. My experience FWIW.

[kawter2]

focusing speed

Canon 24-70 2.8 > Tamron 28-75 2.8 > Canon 50 1.4


IMO tamron AF is a little slow for sports. If you have $1100 to spend, get the Canon.. A friend of mine (blinkings) is getting great results shooting basketball with the 85 1.8 USM (bout $300)here is a sample

http://www.blinking8s.com/photos/etsu/bball/vs_charleston/gallery/

[OneManArmy]

Well, I could pull out the money but I would have to give up some in areas like lighting equipment, and may have to sell my 50 1.4 to get the money for it, so there would be some "give" to getting the 24-70. I was thinking if the tamron was very comparable in every way, I could get that, and use the rest for other equipment.

And the 85 1.8 focuses quicker than my 50mm 1.4, or so I've read. I considered getting it before I decided to go L zoom. Now I'm thinking of going away from primes since all the reviews say L zoom is as sharp with faster focusing; the only cavaet being 2.8 max apertures compared to primes. But geez the zooming feature is SO nice. I'd have to buy about 6 primes to cover me, and I'm sure there'd always be a situation where I regretted not having focal length flexibility of a zoom.

[aam1234]

Another thing to consider, and I've learned it here, is that the tamron doesn't have manual focus.

[HJMinard]

Another thing to consider, and I've learned it here, is that the tamron doesn't have manual focus.

Full-time manual focus, I assume you mean? It does, of course, have a switch for manual focus.

[OneManArmy]

Full-time manual focus, I assume you mean? It does, of course, have a switch for manual focus.
That's not near as good. often you can actually damage the lens if you manually focus when it's on autofocus. I like the ftm.

[HJMinard]

That's not near as good. often you can actually damage the lens if you manually focus when it's on autofocus. I like the ftm.

Agreed ... ftm focus is definitely better and a desired feature. However, for your stated purpose (indoor sports), I don't think ftm focus is a critical consideration in the cost/benefit analysis.

[aam1234]

Thanks Jay for the clarification. I just learned from you the difference btween MF and FTM (kicking self for giving wrong information :o )

Thanks again

[OneManArmy]

Agreed ... ftm focus is definitely better and a desired feature. However, for your stated purpose (indoor sports), I don't think ftm focus is a critical consideration in the cost/benefit analysis.
I always hate having to "worry" about whether it's on auto or not, scared I might accidentally hurt the lense. When you're through shooting, you should put it on manual in case the lense gets bumped around. Then, when you pick it up again, you have to remember to put it back on auto. :rolleyes:

[kawter2]

When you're through shooting, you should put it on manual in case the lense gets bumped around. Then, when you pick it up again, you have to remember to put it back on auto. :rolleyes:


That would make me go crazy!!! ;)

[Persian-Rice]

The Tamron does not have FTMF, personally, I never found it annoying not having FTMF, but it is convenient.

Image quality is very very close, almost identical, I find the Tamron slightly softer wide open. The 24-70 is built much better. As an owner of both, I can tell you yes, the 24-70 is more then considerably faster in terms of focusing.

BTW, you should not be bumping the lens around hard enough to switch focusing modes. Those buttons are pretty stiff. If it is happenbing to you, I would be more concerned about how I treat my equipment then a button.

[OneManArmy]

Image quality is very very close, almost identical, I find the Tamron slightly softer wide open. The 24-70 is built much better. As an owner of both, I can tell you yes, the 24-70 is more then considerably faster in terms of focusing.
.
That's the advice I was looking for; from someone who owns both. And that pretty much seals it; I'm getting the 24-70. Unfortunately, that means I'll likely have to wait on the 70-200 2.8L.

Thanks man

[Persian-Rice]

No problem, you will really enjoy it. But why don't you buy the 70-200 first? Considering you need it for sports.

[OneManArmy]

No problem, you will really enjoy it. But why don't you buy the 70-200 first? Considering you need it for sports.Good question, and a tough one. I have to run some numbers to fully decide, there are many options and only so much $ obviously.

I currently have: 20d, 50mm 1.4, 70-200 f/4-f5.6 Sigma and Sigma 15-55 kit type lense. I reeeeally need a 24-70, esp. for portraiture. I'm going to buy some lighting too, and start learning portraiture. I've been reading books etc. I already have a 70-200; albeit a far cry from the L, but with good lighting, it isn't too bad. I feel like I need the 24-70 first and some lighting first and foremost. If I can swing the 70-200L I will, even if I have to sell the 50 1.4, but I'd rather not have to. If I just can't get the 70-200L at the moment, I have the 50 1.4 for sports in the meantime, which I've been using with some success; I love the low light but the focusing has been a bit disappointing so far. When I get a good focus, it's not bad, but usually with a narrow DOF at anything below 2.2

Also, I'm typically the official photographer at events I cover and am very close to the action.

Thanks