Tamron SP AF28-75/2.8 XR Di LD vs. Sigma 24-70/2.8 EX

[_dreamer]

I'm a owner of a 300D Kit (and an amazing 70-200 4L lens).
I've decided to improve/enhance my existing kit lens.

The requirements are:
- 20-70 range (and if the 20 can be 16 it will be excellent).
- IS will be very very nice.
- up to 500-600 $.

Until now these are the results:
- Tamron SP AF28-75/2.8 XR Di LD
- Sigma 24-70/2.8 EX
- Canon, which due to the price tag is out of the race ;)

As you can see I changed my request (due to the available lenses)...

The internet research i've conducted until now shows Tamron as the best offer.

Comments/Suggestions will be welcome...

[Andy_T]

Dreamer,

I found you something special (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20221&highlight=tamron+review) :wink:

That's the historic thread that started the Tamron fever on the forum.

Since then, it has only been people asking the question, buying the Tamron, raving about it with few people receiving soft copies (that were promptly exchanged when presented to the seller in due time).

Do more research with the 'search' function, you'll find hundreds of posts about the Tamron lens.

And yes, I love mine and think I made the right decision. It's a sweet lens.

Best regards,
Andy

[_dreamer]

Thanks!
I searched for comparison in the forum but found only opinions and not real comparison like in your link.

I'll Probably buy the Tamron on my US visit in the following weeks,
What is the fastest way to discover if i got a soft copy of the lens?

[mr.photoguy]

I posted a Tamron 28-75 Sample image post in this section..
If you search my posts you will find it.
also if you check on my site, I have some sample images from my lense.
www.pbase.com/brucescott
then go to lens tests.
hope it helps.

[cactusclay]

You may want to try out the Tamron AF in artificial light, before buying it.

[Andy_T]

Dreamer,

take a look at this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=58493&highlight=test).

It has links to other threads with tests of lenses.

Best regards,
Andy

[CyberDyneSystems]

Be aware that JAF was comparing the older 28-70mm EX SIgma,. not the newer 24-70mm that you are looking at now.

I understand the sharpest Sigma in this range now though is the 24-60mm f/2.8 EX...

In any case,. the Sigma's will all focus much faster than the Tamron, if this is important to you.

[_dreamer]

It looks like Tamron is the final choice.

Is there any application to quickly determine if the lens is soft ?

[Andy_T]

Is there any application to quickly determine if the lens is soft ?

Dreamer,

take a look at this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=58493&highlight=test).

:wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[mr.photoguy]

Why not look at a used, or maybe new 17-85 Canon with IS. Although not that fast, it covers your ranges.
http://www.nextag.com/buyer/productm.jsp?nxtg=4889_B9CBEB934265C386&product=65619289

Look above, you said the 500-600 dollar range.

[Andy_T]

Why not look at a used, or maybe new 17-85 Canon with IS.

Simple. Because optically it is not in the same league with the other two.

It's only more expensive.

Best regards,
Andy

[mr.photoguy]

I wouldn't be that quick to say that.
My father has the lens, and I have shot a few frames with his camera before I got mine. It is pretty damn sharp, and this was just viewing mildly ACDC processed images.

The only downfall was it wasn't a 2.8.
Anyhow, I have the Tamron, and I am happy with it. Ofcourse as with any new lens, I had to learn to use it properly. I never used the Sigma, but I figure you could search for photo's on pbase.

[_dreamer]

Even following the discussion i'm still in favor of the Tamron lens.

can anyone explain the exact benefit of the IS in the canon?

[Jon]

The IS on the 17-85 will about make up for the 1-2 stops slower that the optics are than the Sigma or Tamron f/2.8s, when you're not shooting moving subjects. Optically it will give you a real wide angle (not a really wide wide angle though) which the others won't.

[_dreamer]

The fight is now between the Canon & the Tamron.
I have several open issues:
- Is Tamron 100% compatible.
I heard of cases with Sigma that camera upgrade required lens replacement.

- I'm trying to compare between:
- Canon: Wide angel (17mm) & the IS
- Tamron: F2.8 & Faster Focusing.

Is the canon 17mm can help me avoiding the future purchase of wide angel lens?
(reminder, i'm an amateur)

I'm trying to compare the best lens in low light situation:
- Canon has the IS which will give me 1-2 more stops.
- Tamron has F2.8 which will allow more light.

Taking an "average" night photo which will give me better result?
(in two modes: with tripod and without)

[Andy_T]

My choice to that question was to get the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and the Canon EF-S 18-55 kit lens.

From the comparisons I've seen at that time, the 17-85 was not really much better than the 18-55 kit lens. Better colours & contrast yes, but not sharpness.

Best regards,
Andy

[mr.photoguy]

Indeed it is a tough choice between those two.
I like low light shooting so the f2.8, and sharpness is my main priority.
Bruce.

[_dreamer]

Andythaler & mr.photoguy:
having the kit lens made the decision easier.
I'm probably going to give the Tamron a test.

there's only one open issue for me:
Can anyone say something regarding future compatibility of the lens with future cameras?
are there any known issues with 3rd party lenses?

[Andy_T]

Can anyone say something regarding future compatibility of the lens with future cameras?

No. That, of course is an area where Canon lenses have an advantage, in that Canon will take care of their old lenses when equipping a new camera with a different interface protocol or new features.

are there any known issues with 3rd party lenses?

It's mainly older Sigma lenses that are not compatible [ERR99] with new Canon digital cameras. Many of these can/could be re-chipped by Sigma at no cost, but some simply won't work.

Haven't heard about problems with old Tamron lenses, but maybe somebody else has.

Best regards,
Andy

[sodakred]

I have the 20D and the 17-85 with IS. I really like the lens and find it to be quite sharp with great contrast and color. The additional width/length on both ends make it a real winner. I also have a 70-200 2.8L (sports and portraits), a 50 1.4 (low light non-flash) and the 10-22 S wide (for scenes and fun). I enjoy the 17-85 and find it very flexible. It's on my camera a lot, even given the other great lenses in my bag.

Sodakred

[mr.photoguy]

My take on it is this..
If you have the 28-75 f2.8 then you will have a lens that is capeable of stoping down, and great for portraits, and bluring the background out, also you have a lens that covers a moderate range.
Then you can look for an ultra wide lens.
Some of us want to go wider than 18, or 17, so we can look towards the 10-22 (Canon), 10-20 (Sigma), Tokina 11-something, or whichever lens that will get you a wider view than 16mm.

This is what I am going to do, and is something to look into ...

The Canon does give you the IS, and covers the wide angle, but I still don't think it's wide enough.
Once I get my wide wide lens, I am selling my 18-55...

[kawter2]

I have the Tamron and know someone with the Sigma. I prefer the Tamron.

Sigma seems to be built a little better, but man the thing is a TANK and the ZOOM RING is REALLY tight, you almost need a wrench to zoom in and out!!

The Tamron is a sharper past f4. and IMO is optiaclly FAR supperior