L v Tamron

[samdring]

I have a number of L lenses which I love and for the last 2 months or so, the Tamron 28-75.
The Tamron is an extremely sharp example and I am thrilled with the results.....however, I have big hands and am somewhat peed off with catching the focusing ring on AF. The Tamron does more work on both 10/20D than any other single lens.

Question: Considering buying the 24-70 L - will I get ANY improvement in quality for the considerable outlay - am fairly sure AF speed and build quality will show gains

[Jackal]

The AF speed and build quality are better on the L of course. But is that alone really worth $1000 more? To me it wasn't.

I've seen 100% crops from the Tamron and 24-70L and either they're even or the Tamron is better.

[blue_max]

The Canon lens is struggling to show value for it's price, in the face of stiff competition from lenses that are a third of it's cost.

Time for a significant price cut Canon? Although it would risk upsetting it's existing customers, so it's between a rock and a hard place.

Graham

[Sathi]

Why not spend that $ on a lens in a focal range you do not already have?

[samdring]

Why not spend that $ on a lens in a focal range you do not already have?

Fair point but not my point - I have all focal lengths covered for my needs (17-400 in a mix of primes and zooms all L apart from lens in question)

My point was, extreme irritation with Tamron AF collar

[Headcase650]

So your problem with the tamron is its build and layout quality, you are perfectly happy with its image quality if I am understanding you correctly. The canon is high dollar. check out the sigma 24-70 2.8 EX DG Macro (the newest one). Its build and layout is compairable to the canon "L" only its not weather resistand and doenst have USM, but it does focus faster than the tamron you are using now. The focus ring is on some kind of clutch and doesnt turn when in auto focus.

I have the tamron, when I bought it I couldnt find a sigma local. but sense have had a chance to play with one and its build and layout is much better than the tamron, but at the cost of more weight and a huge filter. Its a much larger lens, as big as the "L".

[accord]

If you think of the Sigma, you should be aware of focus problem. There have had many complaints in the net on the Sigma. There is no prove that Sigma has officially fixed it, or the problem really exists.

[Sathi]

Yeah, I agree with you that the rotating focus ring could be better. I have large hands as well and at first I was accidentally getting in the way of the focus ring. I guess I got used to it and don't have that problem anymore. Of course you get what you pay for and the lens was only $300 :) I like it though....

As far as the sigma 24-70 2.8 EX DG Macro I got a chance to try my friend's and found that the tamron focused much faster. It is interesting that we have a different experience. What is the camera you were using Headcase? I tried both with a 20d. I see how the plasticish nature of the tamron could be a turnoff to some people. Allot of people equate weight with quality. But honestly, the sigma being so large and heavy I found the zoom action to be kind of slow and clunky compared to the tamron which feels light and smooth to me.

[Headcase650]

I have a 20D and tried the sigma in a local store on my camera. I also had my tamron with me and in the poor lighting of the store the sigma reached focus faster than the tamron. I took a few test shots with both. I liked both lenses and sharpness was pretty much equil to my amiture eye. The sigma was a tad warmer.

Like I said the sigma is much bigger and This may be a pluss or minus depending what you like. I didnt care for the weight or the size but like I sais I think the sigma has a better build.

[Redbird_xo]

My point was, extreme irritation with Tamron AF collar

I am, too, annoyed by the turning manual focus ring while autofocusing. On top of that, I really wish the Tamron had FTM. But I wouldn't go out and buy the Canon counterpart because of the marginal optically improvement. On the other hand, FTM and AF speed alone might justify the purchase for some.

[LightRules]

I've had 2 of each and there's no question that the Sigma AF's much faster...as well as much noisier. Also, I've just posted a 1st test batch between the new Sigma 30 f1.4 and the classic Canon 35 f2, FYI, at my site below.

[condyk]

Having owned the Tamron and tried the Sigma I would now choose the Sigma. The Canon isn't even a contender. The AF is fine and my only issue would be whether the additional size/weight is worth the improved build over the Tamron. Both take fine quality images and I think any difference worth worrying about would be down to the shooter. So, I think I slightly prefer the Sigma but not sure why. Maybe it felt more reassuring due to mass!! The plastic Tamron is built fine tho' and the finish is perfectly acceptable. The focus is a tad noisy on the Sigma but I really only noticed because I thought I should. Not worse than some other lenses I've had. No big deal to me. We tend to notice things we are looking for!

As to the Tamron focus ring turning thingy ... I had mine for around 3 months and never once touched it while it was moving! I think it would be far less expensive, cost would be $0 :lol: , to alter how you hold it than think about getting a Canon L equivelent.

Graham is spot on too: the Canon L is under significant competition and doesn't seem to come up with the goods give it's huge premium. Fstopjojo did a very revealing test a few weeks back between the Sigma and the Canon. Check it out before laying down hard earned cash.