Minutes away from a 24-70 2.8L purchase

[steibeldj]

Took some shots tonight of the 3 kids reading with my wife in low light. Manual mode ISO 1600 and 800, 28-135 IS with my best hand held technique. Came out grainy (noise) and I lost one of the best shots I've had to date of the four of them. :evil:

Can anyone recommend first hand where to purchase the 24-70 2.8L lens? I was thinking B&H and they want $1139. :D

[Dante King]

Save your money and sent it to me! I'll send you a 50mm 1.8 markII ;) I cant have you buy this lens with out testing it for you first to make sure its not defective. See, thats the type of guy I am.

Actually B&H have pretty good prices and excellent service.

[steibeldj]

I thought about a 35mm or 50mm prime 1.x for my 20d. I could buy a couple of these for the same price (non-L). However, I feel self consious framing my subjects with a prime and I enjoy sneaking a shot when no one is posing. The zooms let me do that nicely. I always find myself working without the flash for a quick stealthy shot. I have some beautiful examples of these moments.

[Maureen Souza]

You could save a lotof money and buy the Tamron 28-75/2.8 for $329 after rebate ($40). The difference is negligable in quality but high in dollars.

[steibeldj]

I am new to photography and I wish I had been able to meet more photographers and borrow a lens or two. Ritz and Wolf just never have anything good in stock to try out. The Tamron 28-75/2.8 XRDi sounds interesting, right zoom range, right apature, I have heard so much excellent press about the 24-70 especially the 'L' glass and auto focus. The problem is I have a Quantaray 50mm 2.8 macro lens which should do the trick for me, but I just don't get the sharpness I am looking for with it.

[Dante King]

steibldj, I dont think AF is a problem with the tamrons, in fact my 28-300 AF is pretty darn good. At this point in my life I cant justify getting any L glass. :(

You know Maureen, I have been debating losing my 28-300 tamron and picking up a Tamron 28-75/2.8 some time now as to benerit from a faster apeture than the 28/300 has. I too like to sneak up on people with them being unaware. Do alot of shooting around the house w/o flash and this might be fast enough to improve pic quality at lower light over the 28-300. would hate to lose the great reach. Damn! Too many lenses and so little cash!

[SDK^]

I sold my 28-135IS for a 24-70L and have never looked back.

The 24-70L is so much sharper, taking a photo at F2.8 gives a superb 3D look to the image, go and buy one now !!! :)

[DSMITH131]

so did you get it

[ron chappel]

Would an f2.8 lens give any benifit over the 28-135 with it's image stabilization?

Remember the IS is worth at least 1.5 stops ,usually more

[mjordan]

You could save a lotof money and buy the Tamron 28-75/2.8 for $329 after rebate ($40). The difference is negligable in quality but high in dollars.

While the Tamron might be a decent lens, there is no way a lens costing $329 is going to work as well (or even with negligable difference) than the Canon 24-70 2.8L. The Tamron might have a sweat spot or two, but if compared at all fstops and focal lengths, not to mention build quality, you will find that there is a difference. For someone that either has the choice of no lens or a cheaper Tamron, it's probably a good choice. But for someone that can buy a 24-70 2.8L, it could be a way to save money, not a way to save money and get the same quality.

Mike

[SDK^]

Would an f2.8 lens give any benifit over the 28-135 with it's image stabilization?

Remember the IS is worth at least 1.5 stops ,usually more
Standard IS doesn't work for moving subjects though ;) and the 28-135 is really soft wide open

[ohenry]

I have owned both the Tamron Di and the Canon L. I can tell you that although the Tamron is a very good lens, it does fall short when compared to the Canon L. Whether the cost difference is a major factor or not is a personal choice, but the build quality, color rendition, speed of USM, and sharpness is excellent.

[chucksberg]

Did use use some noise reduction software on those pics. Iso 800 and 1600 are very useable on a 20d.

I have the Tamron and it performs very well. I still prefer the 50 and 85mm primes for low light indoor shots.

IMO comparing the Tamron to the Canon L is the same as comparing the 20d to the pro bodies. Quality wise they are in a different class, but the final result is pretty much a wash.

I don't know why we push pro glass around here and not pro bodies...maybe resale value.

I have a Zenitar Fisheye, Canon 28mm 2.8, Canon 50mm 1.8, 27-75 2.8 Tamron, Canon 85mm 1.8 and have less money tied up in it than 1 Canon 24-70L.

If I had money to burn I would have all L glass and Pro bodies, but I don't, it's just one of my hobbies.

[steibeldj]

Thanks again to all who responded. I am placing my order for the 24-70L. To repay in kind to all who took the time to advise me, I will start to post the side by side comparisons of both lenses. (In case someone else has the same quandry!) I will not sell my 28-135IS as It is a fantastic daytime walk-around lens. For those of us working on our technique, the IS does help a lot. Also from what I can see, the 28-135IS is shorter and lighter.

[Persian-Rice]

Congrats on you purchase, the Tamron is good, but the 24-70 is in its own class. There is nothing that the 24-70 can do that the Tamron can match. It might come lose in some places, but never the same. If you want to generalize the only thing close is sharpness. Everything else is below what you get with the canon.

I own both lenses, and to be honest the Tamron has become a body cap for my elan. I thought it would get used, but I can't justify using it instead of the Canon, it only comes in handy when your stuff gets stolen or you forget the Canon at home.

[MDJAK]

I just sold my 20D with the 28-135 IS.

I'm going to B&H tomorrow to buy myself a present (nobody else will;) ).

Now that my above lens is a goner, I have:

17-40 (wish it were the 16-35)
100 mm macro (rarely use it; don't have a tripod yet.)
70-300 DO
70-200 F2.8 IS (love it. did I say I love it?)
1.4 x teleconverter II.

Went to the zoo and wished for a more powerful zoom, even with 1.4 x.

Should I get the 24-70 canon or the 100-400?

[ron chappel]

Standard IS doesn't work for moving subjects though ;) and the 28-135 is really soft wide open

True i forgot that:)

[Mike Panic]

i have shot the tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and wrote a review on it here: http://www.iphotoforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13309

ive also owned the canon 24-70 f/2.8L for about 2 weeks now and shot several times in studio with it... as stated above, it is in a class by itself and i do not regret the purchase, at all. i got it when dell did their one day stackable coupon sale for $1136 shipped to my door

[steibeldj]

My lens comes today (per the tracking number) and I can't wait to get home from work. Yes, she is at home incase the truck comes!

I saw in a thread on this forum that I may also have a problem with my default settings on the 20d that left me with 'grain drain'. I will post a new thread with this question.

[eosster]

Difference of 4mm range difference huge.....I bought mine used but paid hefty for it.

[Jon]

I just sold my 20D with the 28-135 IS.

I'm going to B&H tomorrow to buy myself a present (nobody else will;) ).

Now that my above lens is a goner, I have:

17-40 (wish it were the 16-35)
100 mm macro (rarely use it; don't have a tripod yet.)
70-300 DO
70-200 F2.8 IS (love it. did I say I love it?)
1.4 x teleconverter II.

Went to the zoo and wished for a more powerful zoom, even with 1.4 x.

Should I get the 24-70 canon or the 100-400?

How often do you find yourself wanting that extra reach? If it's not that often, I'd say go with the 24-70. If it's all the time, then you need the 100-400. But as long as you're buying yourself the present, why not give yourself both? After all, as the L'Oreal ad says "I'm worth it!"