Tamron 28-75/2.8 vs. Canon 24-85/3.5-4.5

[Nessus]

This may have been covered in the past, but do any of you have thoughts on which is the better lens? I have the Canon 24-85, but the internal portion of the lens the extends for zooming seems loose, and a bit flimsy. I also do not like the aperture of the Canon lens because it interferes with the cross action of the sensors on my 1DMkII and EOS 1v. I looked at the Tamron today at a local store, and it seemed much more solidly built I have read that it is a sharp lens, and while I am trying to save for the Canon 24-70 L, the Tamron may be all I need at the moment.

Adam

[prime80]

From everything I've read, the Tamron is a much better lens than the 24-85. It supposedly competes quite well with the 24-70L in the IQ dept. I hope it does, as it's next on my wish list.

[GeneMan88]

I've never had an EF 24-85 f/3.5-4.5, but I can say that the Tamron is a really nice lens for the $$$. I hope to own an EF 24-70 f2.8L some day, but 'til then, the Tamron works for me.

[KevC]

Also consider the SIgma 24-70 or 24-60 :) These third party lenses are gems

[wintoid]

I used to have the 24-85 and now have the Tamron 28-75. I miss the wonderful range especially 24mm, and the incredibly fast focus speed (seems even faster than my 85mm prime, from memory), and the compact dimensions. I'd still rather be using the Tamron though, at the end of the day. It's much sharper.

[Skip Souza]

There is NO WAY in the world that I would buy a Tamron 28-75.

I would just borrow my wife's, if she let me. hehehehe
Hers is killer sharp sharp and cheaper than the 24-70 L. Probably the best third party lens deal around.

[Rroet]

Thanks guys, From all the reviews I've been reading I was really wondering if I'd buy the tamron or not. I'm almost convinced now.

Slightly going off topic...: Tamron 28-75 f2.8 against the Canon EF 28-135 f3.5/5.6 IS USM
I know the Canon has a bit more range and has IS. But is that combinations so much more powerfull that it's worth to buy it? Or is Tamron still the killer lens compared to this canon lens?

[Skip Souza]

Okay, Rroet. Now you are comparing apples to oranges, or grapefruit, or prunes or something.
All lenses are compromises in speed, range, size, PRICE, etc.
You need to decide what fits for you.
The Ideal lens would be a 15-500mm, f/1.0 IS the size and weight and price of the 50mm f/1.4.
Yeah, right. At about the same time we get nickle beer, dime (Cuban) cigars, and 50 cent gas.
You just have to choose what is right for you. Remember you get to have more than one lens ;-)

[Rroet]

probably you're revering to the Sigma 50-500 lens. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0505/05051901sigma_50-500mm.asp

But seriously, I get the point. Offcourse I (eventually) get more lenses, I have a wishlist all put together already. Now it's just comparing the brands, and other user reviews to find out what's brand is the best in types of lenses I want.

[Andy_T]

Rroet,

brand really does not say much here.
Every reputable lens company (Canon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina) makes great, very good, good, mediocre and crappy lenses.
The important thing is to find out into which category a specific lens falls into. (There are only very few lenses in the 'Great' category)

Depending on how good your specific copy is, the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is either in high in the 'Good' or straight in the 'Very good' category, at the price of the average lens in the 'mediocre' category. Hope that helps :wink:

Also take a look at this comparison (http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/shootout)comparing various lenses in the 24-70/2.8 range (not the Canon 24-70/2.8 L, unfortunately) and the 28-135. Bear in mind that in this test, the sharpness test shots were done wide open, so the Tamron was used at f/2.8, while the Canon 28-135 was used at about f/4.5. Now the sharpness of my Tamron 28-75/2.8 at f/4.0 is the same as my 50/1.8 at f/2.8 (there's an example of that lens in that aperture available).

Best regards,
Andy

[snapper27]

i followed the link but can't figure out the reuslts- which is the best???