I own the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 and looking to buy the canon 24-70 F2.8 L

[tsmakrakis]

I love the quality of the Tamron - pictures are great - I don't know if the L will give me better image results. My only concern with the Tamron is the focusing speed and accuracy. Is it worth it to spend the extra money to get the Canon just for the focusing speed? Does the L focus faster and more accurate? (I have the 20D by the way) I need an advise from people that have experience with both. I shoot weddings and studio portraits.

Thanks so much - this is my first post!
:)Tassos
www.themomento.com (http://www.themomento.com)

[Tsmith]

Unless your having an issue with the Tamron and judging from your photos your not IMO, I'd stick with the Tamy and put the money savings to use elsewhere.

[Dante King]

Welcome to POTN. Great work on your site!

Focus will be faster on the L. More accurate, most yes with proper use of the L. I went with the tamron after extended trials with the L and found all the short coming over the L with USM etc was not worth the extra $$$$. I do like the build quality of the L better and might some day get the L just for that reason.

[grego]

Sure, if you have the money, sell the Tamron and upgrade. The lens will always be there,, the bodies will change.

[condyk]

Well, how much is 'faster' worth to you? Do you really need faster? Is the L really so much faster that it's worth spending 3 1/2 times the price? Is AF accuracy a problem at the moment? Do you ever need to use the advantages of USM? Do you need the extra 'build quality'? It all depends on your personal priorities ...

[Andy_T]

Tassos,

well, to give you a meaningful answer to that one, it'd be helpful to know what other lenses you have.

There's the old saying about filling gaps before upgrading existing lenses.

Plus ... if you want a lens that will give you a *dramatic* improvement over the 28-75/2.8 (or the 24-70/2.8 L, BTW), take a look at the Canon EF 50/1.4. Might not be as convenient, but there are some things only a prime can do.

Best regards,
Andy

[tsmakrakis]

Thanks everybody for the quick response.
I think I am hooked to the idea of having the best lenses possible. This may be bad cause most of the times for 10% improvment you have to pay 3 times more... That is where this forum comes in - to protect each other sometimes from spending or wasting money.

Focus accuracy is not a problem with my Tamron. I tried the L and I found it a bit more quite and fast and that is why I wanted to buy it - I realize now that it may not be a good idea even if I had the money to spend.

I am buying a second 20D for backup purposes so another reason I wanted the L is to have a second lens for the 2nd camera. I know I can buy the Tamron again but...

I don't have a wide lens - I am looking to buy one - either the 16-35 2.8 or 17-40 4.0 or 10-22. I just try not to worry about the money and buy what I will eventually need even if it hurts.

Another decision I am trying to make is to go from the 70-200 4 I have to the 2.8 IS. I went to my camera store this morning and I tried the 2.8 on the 20D and this thing is HUUUUUUGE... Is it worth it for just 1 stop faster to carry this "weapon" with me all day?

Man, I though becoming a photographer would be headache free (making decisions wise)

Keep posting your thoughs guys.
I appreciate your input.

Thanks

[LightRules]

Curious if you have considered some of Sigma's EX line. The 18-50 f2.8 is a very good piece of glass as is the 24-70 f2.8. Sigma just released their new catalog: http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/pdfs/Lens%20Brochure.pdf

But I would agree that the Canon 24-70L is excellent especially in its handling and its ring USM.

[DavidEB]

TSMAKRAKIS wrote....
That is where this forum comes in - to protect each other sometimes from spending or wasting money.



this is the first time I've seen anybody suggest that this forum saves them money!!!

[tsmakrakis]

Save money = money well spend :)

[tsmakrakis]

fStopJojo thanks for the suggestion. I generally trust Canon Lenses more than Sigma/Tamron etc... and a major thing for me is the autofocus speed. I know that the body plays a role too - like the 1D will focus faster than the 20D but the lenses play their role too. Have you tried the Sigma 18-50mm 2.8? Any reviews online? What is the price?

[Jon]

this is the first time I've seen anybody suggest that this forum saves them money!!!

Not necessarily saving - just not spending/wasting. When we encourage you to get the 70-200 f/4 L instead of the 75-300, or the 50 f/1.4 rather than the 1.8, are we really encouraging you to save money?

[Andy_T]

Tassos,

in your position, I'd upgrade the 70-200/4.0 to the 2.8 and the 50/1.8 to the 1.4 first.

Can't really comment on the 70-200, as I have neither, but the 50/1.4 is a dramatic improvement over the 50/1.8.

Also serves to get more insight into your true priorities ... compare packages of lenses.

e.g.
Canon 24-70/2.8 + 70-200/4.0 + 17-40/4.0 + 50/1.8
vs.
Tamron 28-75/2.8 + 70-200/2.8 + 16-35/2.8 + 50/1.4
etc...

Best regards,
Andy

[weasel]

I was, at one time, considering the 70-200L f/4. I really wanted something 'faster' and as you have found out the 70-200L f/2.8 is a heavy piece of glass. I decided on the 135L f/2 and the 1.4X TC. BTW, While I have never used the Tamron lens I do have the 24-70L f/2.8 and can enthusiasticly reccomend it. :)

[Tsmith]

Have you tried the Sigma 18-50mm 2.8? Any reviews online? What is the price?

This lens suffers from the dreaded CA (chromatic abbreviation) in high contrast situations. Especially wide open indoors where you have sunlight windows.

[condyk]

Tamron 28-75/2.8 + 70-200/2.8 + 16-35/2.8 + 50/1.4


That's an almost unbeatable package for the money and exactly the focus I was going to suggest. I would certainly look to upgrade a 70-300 f4 to the f2.8 before looking at the 24-70 L. The benefit would be considerable, though Weasels 135mm/TCon combo would provide an interesting alternative if a prime fits into your shooting style.

fstopjojo (do a google search for the name) did a test of the Sigma 18-50mm 2.8, which is a very attractive lens that I very nearly bought not long ago. I decided on the Sigma 24-70 instead because a bit longer is usually more useful to me personally than the extra on the wide end.

[cactusclay]

I've had both the Tamron and the Canon. What I noticed on the Tamron was that it seemed to hunt in artificial lighting. The Canon didn't, but the Canon did hunt on occasion in low light conditions, but I think that is normal for a 2.8 lens. As far as the 70-200 4.0 and 2.8 go, if you are shooting mostly weddings and use a flash bracket, then I think the 4.0 would be fine. Most weddings I do are outside, so I use fill flash extensively and don't really need the 2.8 much, but if you are shooting with existing light, then I can see where the 2.8 would come in handy, specially with IS.

[davidwegs]

I have both. I use the Tamrons as a rule these days. My Canon locks focus where the Tamron hunts a little (low light), however, my Canon will mis focus notably more shots than the Tamron.

[tsmakrakis]

Thanks guys...

About the 70-200 4.0...
For Everything I shoot inside I use Flash (580EX)... Do I really need the 2.8 IS if I shoot with flash?
For outside I am fine with the F4 (I like its size too)

Thanks

[LightRules]

Thanks guys...

About the 70-200 4.0...
For Everything I shoot inside I use Flash (580EX)... Do I really need the 2.8 IS if I shoot with flash?
For outside I am fine with the F4 (I like its size too)

Thanks

I think the f4 would be just fine if you're using the 580EX. Also, there is quite a difference in size bw these 2 lenses (f4 v f2.8). Its really like a pencil v. a thick hi-liter marker.

[tsmakrakis]

I agree,,, I have decided not to spend the money on the 2.8 and keep the 70-200 F4 for now.

Thanks!