Tamron 28-75 or Canon 28-135

[Marshy]

Would like a mid-priced walk about lense , at moment i think i am down to Tamron 28-75 or Canon 28-135 , any views to help me please ?

[tim]

Have a look at this sticky (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=56752).

I have the Tamron, the 28-135 was my 2nd choice. It boils down to do you want a fast F2.8 lens, or a slower lens with IS. For what I take photos of (a bit of everything, more of people or things moving) the Tamron was the obvious choice, and one i'm very happy I made - it rarely leaves my camera.

[cyclone]

I have this Tamron lens, and it is an excellent lens. I would rather have the 2.8 than the IS, as it allows more selective depth of field that this Canon lens would. Based on reviews, I also believe that the Tamron lens is sharper as well.

Cyclone

[Marshall]

The Tamron has my vote, good reviews by users.

[cc10d]

The advantage of the Tamron is the f2.8. It will work in lower light, and as mentioned give shallow depth of field when desired. It is a sharper than many and provides precision focus on the 20D, (because it s f2.8 )
The Canon 28-135 as well as having IS, has a longer reach, which I find desireable at times, especially outdoors. At normal outdoor light, one does not need f2.8, most pictures are taken f8 or so, and down a stop or so, the Canon is a very good lens. It is one of the best non-L zooms. I have both lenses and like them both. Each has its strong points.

[pcasciola]

They're both good lenses and have their own advantages. I picked the Tamron because I wanted f/2.8 for indoor use.

[SENster7]

I have the Tamron 28-75 2.8 and it is a great lens. With a little USM, it produces great results wide open. Stopped down to 4 or 5.6 this lens is razor tack sharp as well.

[Andy_T]

The Tamron 28-75/2.8 is a great lens that is often compared to the 24-70/2.8 L as far as image quality is concerned.

I can't compare the two lenses, as I only have the Tamron, but it is a great lens and gives great pictures. If it ever leaves my camera, it only does that for either a wide angle lens or a fast prime in the same range.

Best regards,
Andy

[norcal99]

I've got both lenses and the Tamron is on my camera most of the time. I liked the idea of the fast shutter allowing me to shoot indoors where flashes aren't allowed. The image quality is superb. The 28-135 is also nice but the f/2.8 isn't as limiting as the f/3.5 with the IS. I can get better pictures shooting at f/2.8 than I can at 3.5 with the Image Stabilizer.

[Andrea_T]

I have both lenses and prefer the Tamron for the better performance and the wider maximum aperture. I bought the Tamron a couple of months ago and I think I'll be selling the Canon as I can't imagine using it very often in future. It's a very sharp lens and, as norcal says, I have more success shooting at f2.8 in low light than at f3.5 with the Image Stabilizer.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Marshy,
Did you look at the -=TOP 10=- lens sticky thread?
(with speacial thanks to Tim ;) )

You can see there in plain numbers how the members of this forum voted on these two lenses,. along with many others in the mix.

[Adam Hicks]

The lens test guides always place the Tamron far ahead of the Canon for image quality. You give up a little long end, but that mean the Tamron is a perfect companion to the 70-200 f4 or f2.8!

Adam

[Marshy]

Marshy,
Did you look at the -=TOP 10=- lens sticky thread?
(with speacial thanks to Tim ;) )

You can see there in plain numbers how the members of this forum voted on these two lenses,. along with many others in the mix.

Yes thanks i did read the lense polls but i was confused because the canon got more votes . I have the 70-200f4 the 1.8 50mm and the 18-55 kit lense ( which i cannot c me using ) so i just wanted
a decent walkabout lense . The 24-70l would of been my choice but i still cannot bring myself to spend £900 at the moment .

[Cadwell]

I have both, I prefer the Tamron.

[Andy_T]

Yes thanks i did read the lense polls but i was confused because the canon got more votes .

You will notice that the question is for the best 'starter lens' ... now if you get the 24-70/2.8 L as starter lens, you don't have much upward potential, right :wink:

The 28-135 has a very usable range and IS. Most people who have it (I don't) say that the image quality is good ... but definitely not the same as the 24-70/2.8 L. However, it is very often said about the Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR that the image quality is very similar to the 24-70/2.8 L. Of the people who actually have both lenses, most claim that the Tamron is noticeably sharper at all zoom ranges and apertures.

Also, let's face it, there's a fraction of die-hard 'Canon lens for Canon body only' enthusiasts :twisted: who would not even try out the Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR . Those who try it normally like it, with very few exceptions.

There are some people who got a bad copy, and a few of these made a very big fuss about it that sometimes approaches religious missionarism.

Best regards,
Andy

[Kadath]

I have and love the Tamron 28-75!

Sam

[Andy_T]

Hehe, Kadath is among the latest converts :D

As a sidenote ... my (unscientific) quick test showed me that I get similar sharpness (i.e. very sharp when viewed as 100% crops) at 50 mm focal length with the Canon EF 50/1.8 (MKI) @ f/2.8, the Tamron 28-75/2.8 @ f/4.0 and the Canon EF-S 18-55 @ f/8.

Best regards,
Andy

[mdm]

Where is the best place to shop for the Tamron 28-75 ?

[ed2day]

I own the 28-135 and it's a nice lens and probably gets an edge over the Tamron in versatility. However, the image quality can't compare to some images I've seen posted from the Tamron. I'm "Canon-only" right now because I think their quality is more consistent and focusing tends to be better. If I was doing it over again I'd take a harder look at the Tamron. In fact I was just looking at it on the B&H website last nite--there's still a $40 rebate available which puts the price around $330...tough to beat.

[nwoods]

I'm going through the same delima, though I've not considered the Canon 28-135 based on a number of less than stellar reviews here and on FM Reviews.

I initally bought the new Tamon 18-200mm, but returned promptly and quite disappointed. I then bought the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 everyone has postitively referenced above, but I have not shot with it yet. I seriously considered the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L and the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L. In fact I was fondeling them just today at my camera shop, when a gentleman exhanged his 20D kit lens (the EF-S 17-85 IS) for a 100-400/L, so I snagged the EF-S lens. It feels significantly better than the cheap EF-S-18-55mm kit lens and has IS. I will be testing this lens back to back with the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 to see which I can get better results with. I can tell you from playing around in the store that I really like that extra wide angle and tele range of the EF-S lens. It's QUITE noticable. But I won't know for a week or so which I really like better.

Cheers,

NW

[Wavy C]

Don't actually own either lens, but a friend has the canon 28-135 and sometimes I borrow it. Now I like it so much I'll probably end up buying one. Most reviews I've read rate the 28-135 as one of canon's best non-L zooms and I have certainly found it to be extremely sharp and capable of producing great pictures.

In spite of what some people say, I find it really hard to tell the difference between pictures shot with the 28-135 and my 50mm f1.8 (which is said to be very sharp). If anything, I like the contrasty pictures from the zoom the best.

The IS is a great feature. I've managed to get handheld pictures with shutter speeds as slow as 1/10 sec and so sign of camera shake. If you ever need to shoot from a moving vehicle or boat it really comes into its own.

While I can't compare the 28-135 to the Tamron, as I've never used the Tamron, I think I would go for the 28-135. For me, the longer reach alone would be a big deciding factor (as I'm mainly shooting portraits and people). Another nice thing about the canon lens is that it has a macro facility. This is great on a walk-around lens for those times you spot a butterfly etc and want a shot of it.

[Andy_T]

While I can't compare the 28-135 to the Tamron, as I've never used the Tamron, I think I would go for the 28-135. For me, the longer reach alone would be a big deciding factor (as I'm mainly shooting portraits and people).

For portraits, the f/2.8 at 75 mm is a very nice feature of the Tamron. You get tack sharp photos at f/3.5 or f/4.0 with great bokeh. :D

Best regards,
Andy

[ScottE]

The 28-135 is a great walk around lens because of the range of focal lengths. Shoot at f/8 or f/11 and you won't see much improvement by going to higher quality glass. I combine my with a 17-40/4 in a small camera bag when doing the tourist thing.

The Tamron 28-70 is better quality optics and you can see the difference when shooting at wide apertures. The problem with this lens is that it does not have full time manual override, that is important to me. (See "Focus on the * button")

The Caon 24-70 has both better optics and full time manual overrided. The problem with it is the price.

If you neet the better optics, but don't like the price of the 24-70, look for a used Canon 28-70/2.8.

Scott

[drisley]

When you use the focus on the * button, you can have full time manual override on all lenses.
You just focus with the * button, then let go, and make manual adjustments with the lens ring.
Then click away. Easy as pie :)

[Adam Hicks]

Couple things here, first (see http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#Zstd) the Tamron is rated a good deal higher than the 28-135 in image quality. Second, what do you mean by full time manual override? Mine certainly as an AF/M switch on the side... ?

[Jon]

When you use the focus on the * button, you can have full time manual override on all lenses.
You just focus with the * button, then let go, and make manual adjustments with the lens ring.
Then click away. Easy as pie :)

Err. . . that only works if the lens allows you to focus manually while in AF. Ring USM or the 50 f/1.4 IIRC of the Canon line. Otherwise you risk (at least) grinding the gears.

[thomasrhee]

Unless you feel you need IS, the Tamron IMO is the way to go for a consumer mid-zoom lens. Also in this zoom range, I'll take speed over IS.

tyr

[rkgirl]

Hello

To be honest I wouldn't even consider anyone's opinions in here unless they've owned and used both. I have. I sold the 28-135. Though the reach was amazing, the lens just wasn't fast enough. I'd be stuck at an indoors event focusing and focusing forever. With the 28-75 Tamron, that's a non-issue. Of course it depends a lot on the kind of photography work you do, (I mostly do people related stuffs...) but in the end, it won't matter how far it can reach if the lens isn't fast enough. You'll miss the shot either way.

Quality wise, I have to hand it to the Tamron. I didn't complain much about the Canon, but the Tamron blows me away. I've never regretted the purchase, and the Tamron never leaves my cam.

Hope that helps!!! Do lots of research!! :cool:

[rvdw98]

Hope that helps!!!

It might have... if you posted this 4 years ago, because that's when this thread started. :lol:

[lmans]

If this is a walk about lens...think about what your true interest in photography is and invest in that end of it. If it is within the walk about range, invest heavily dollar wise. if not, scrimp a bit to invest in what you want to do.

I have the 28-135 for I am more into nature photography and I have my 300FL lens to meet my needs and my investment shows it as I have a Canon 1.4 TC too. I scrimped on the walk about but my 28-135 is just fine. Also, it has a higher range than the Tamron at 75mm. So it made more sense to get the 135 with the extended range. Not overly expensive but if anything compliments my needs for more long range even with a walk about.

What is your main interest? Look there first and work out from there...

[madhatter04]

It might have... if you posted this 4 years ago, because that's when this thread started. :lol:
Yeah, the OP may have come to some sort of decision by now ;)