Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 31 Oct 2013 (Thursday) 09:46
Search threadPrev/next
POLL: "Tamron 28-75, Canon 17-40, Canon 24-105, Canon 50 1.4 - which needs to go?"
Keep them all!
8
28.6%
The 50mm f/1.4 needs to go
1
3.6%
The Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 needs to go
14
50%
The Canon 17-40mm f/4 needs to go
0
0%
The Canon 24-105mm f/4 needs to go
3
10.7%
Other
2
7.1%

28 voters, 28 votes given (1 choice only choices can be voted per member)). VOTING IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.
BROWSE ALL POLLS
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Any reason to have a Tamron 28-75 along with a the 17-40 and 24-105?

 
JOL
Member
52 posts
Joined May 2011
Location: Orange County, CA
     
Oct 31, 2013 09:46 |  #1

Hi everyone,

When I owned a crop sensor camera, I purchased a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 and a Canon 50mm f/1.4, along w/ some other lenses (which I sold when I sold my crop body). I recently acquired a FF Canon camera that came w/ the Canon 24-105mm f/4 and the 17-40mm f/4 lens.

I am not a professional photographer, and use my camera primarily for friends' weddings, birthday parties, gatherings, as well as travel. As my wife and I are having our first child, the camera will also get much use to photograph our family.

To me (a hobbyist), it seems as if the Tamron and the 24-105 are redundant in terms of their focal lengths. For the more seasoned photographers out there, both professional and amateur, do you think there's any reason for me to keep the Tamron AND the 24-105?

Furthermore, of the lenses that I currently own, are there any that you would probably sell? I added a poll to this thread, and hope that I get people's insights. FYI - at this time (and being a hobbyist), I am not looking to upgrade to any other nicer L lenses, such as the 16-35, 24-70, etc., nor am I looking to purchase any telephoto lenses.

One more thing - for those of you who have been kind enough to vote in the poll, could you also please respond to this thread to explain why you voted for a particular choice? Thanks!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,165 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2495
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Oct 31, 2013 11:57 |  #2

sell both the 28-75mm and 24-105mm, and replace with the tamron 24-70VC?


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JOL
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
52 posts
Joined May 2011
Location: Orange County, CA
     
Oct 31, 2013 12:08 |  #3

DreDaze wrote in post #16413630 (external link)
sell both the 28-75mm and 24-105mm, and replace with the tamron 24-70VC?

Dre, thank you for the suggestion. Could you explain your rationale as to why you would sell both the 28-75 and 24-105 to fund a 24-70?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Oct 31, 2013 12:16 |  #4

Well obviously if you need f2.8 over the 28-75mm zoom range, the 24-105 can't do that. If not, then no point in having the Tamron.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,086 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2773
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Oct 31, 2013 12:16 |  #5

JOL wrote in post #16413662 (external link)
Dre, thank you for the suggestion. Could you explain your rationale as to why you would sell both the 28-75 and 24-105 to fund a 24-70?

28-75 is an excellent value and so is the 24-105. They are redundant IMHO. The canon is far superior in every way with the exception of 2.8 capable. I had the 24-105 and got rid of it. I now own the Tamron 24-70 VC and it is indeed an excellent lens.

I think you should think about one average zoom. Your 17-40 is a wide angle lens which is a bit different than a 24-xx type lens.

You can see my sig for what I have. Look at my gear list and see the upgrades I have made to get to this point. I'm happy. I'm not a pro, just a dad. However, I can take some really nice photos and people are interested in me for this. It may be something I want to venture into.

Birthdays, family, portraits to me all scream 2.8


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JOL
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
52 posts
Joined May 2011
Location: Orange County, CA
     
Oct 31, 2013 12:31 |  #6

tkbslc wrote in post #16413686 (external link)
Well obviously if you need f2.8 over the 28-75mm zoom range, the 24-105 can't do that. If not, then no point in having the Tamron.

Right - I presume that the 2.8 will be better for both lower light as well as for faster moving kids v. the f/4?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JOL
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
52 posts
Joined May 2011
Location: Orange County, CA
     
Oct 31, 2013 12:36 |  #7

Talley wrote in post #16413687 (external link)
28-75 is an excellent value and so is the 24-105. They are redundant IMHO. The canon is far superior in every way with the exception of 2.8 capable.

Birthdays, family, portraits to me all scream 2.8

Exactly - I am ultimately torn btw the 28-75 and the 24-105. On one hand, the 28-75 can shoot at f/2.8, which I assume will be good for fast moving kids and lower lighting situations. However, the 24-105 seems like a great all-around lens when I don't want to switch lenses around (e.g., when we travel), plus I read great things about the 24-105's focusing, sharpness and build quality.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,165 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2495
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Oct 31, 2013 13:13 |  #8

JOL wrote in post #16413662 (external link)
Dre, thank you for the suggestion. Could you explain your rationale as to why you would sell both the 28-75 and 24-105 to fund a 24-70?

it's kind of like the two of your lenses combined...you get the image stabilization, and f2.8...the only thing you'd miss out on is the extra 35mm on the long end...


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Oct 31, 2013 13:16 |  #9

JOL wrote in post #16413716 (external link)
Right - I presume that the 2.8 will be better for both lower light as well as for faster moving kids v. the f/4?

In terms of shutter speed, yes. However, I never found the 28-75 to be particularly fast to focus, nor sharp at f2.8.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
genjurok
Senior Member
537 posts
Joined Jan 2010
     
Oct 31, 2013 14:02 |  #10

I have the Tamron 28-75 and my sister has 24-105L. In terms of PQ I'd say the Tammy is better at f/4.

The Tamron is sharp wide open at all focal lenght especially at the wide end. Even at the long end which is its weakness , once stopped down to f/4 it's as sharp as my 70-200 IS II wide open at f/2.8 in the frame center, which is the most important thing to me.

The 24-105L has far better AF speed. The Tammy focuses accurately but a bit slow. Also the 24-105L has better built.

One thing is that the 28-75 Tamron is ridiculously light compared to other f/2.8 standard zoom for FF. For this reason and its PQ I'm planning to keep it.


6D
Canon 17-40mm f/4L | Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 | Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II
Canon 50mm f/1.8 | Sigma 50mm f/1.4 | Canon 100mm f/2
580 EX | 430 EX | Pixel King Pro wireless radio trigger and receiver (x2)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JOL
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
52 posts
Joined May 2011
Location: Orange County, CA
     
Oct 31, 2013 15:37 |  #11

DreDaze wrote in post #16413829 (external link)
it's kind of like the two of your lenses combined...you get the image stabilization, and f2.8...the only thing you'd miss out on is the extra 35mm on the long end...

Got it. Thanks DreDaze! Something worth considering.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JOL
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
52 posts
Joined May 2011
Location: Orange County, CA
     
Oct 31, 2013 15:37 |  #12

tkbslc wrote in post #16413836 (external link)
In terms of shutter speed, yes. However, I never found the 28-75 to be particularly fast to focus, nor sharp at f2.8.

Good point - I do find that the 28-75 is a bit slow on its focus. Something certainly to consider.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JOL
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
52 posts
Joined May 2011
Location: Orange County, CA
     
Oct 31, 2013 15:38 |  #13

genjurok wrote in post #16413967 (external link)
I have the Tamron 28-75 and my sister has 24-105L. In terms of PQ I'd say the Tammy is better at f/4.

The Tamron is sharp wide open at all focal lenght especially at the wide end. Even at the long end which is its weakness , once stopped down to f/4 it's as sharp as my 70-200 IS II wide open at f/2.8 in the frame center, which is the most important thing to me.

The 24-105L has far better AF speed. The Tammy focuses accurately but a bit slow. Also the 24-105L has better built.

One thing is that the 28-75 Tamron is ridiculously light compared to other f/2.8 standard zoom for FF. For this reason and its PQ I'm planning to keep it.

I agree that (a) the Tamron focuses a bit slow and (b) that it is super light. Thanks for the input!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Oct 31, 2013 15:53 |  #14
bannedPermanent ban

DreDaze wrote in post #16413630 (external link)
sell both the 28-75mm and 24-105mm, and replace with the tamron 24-70VC?

You read my mind.....


5D3 Gripped / 17-40L / Σ35 / 40 Pancake / Zeiss 50 MP / Σ85 / 100L Macro / 70-200 f2.8L II IS / 430 EX II / 580 EX II / Canon 2xIII TC / Kenko Ext. Tubes
EOS M / EF-M 18-55 / EF-M 22f2 / Ricoh GR aka Ultimate street camera :p
Flickr (external link) | My Images on Getty®‎ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vorlon1
Goldmember
Avatar
1,230 posts
Likes: 676
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Miami, Fl.
     
Oct 31, 2013 17:23 |  #15

I've owned all those lenses except the 17-40. I sold the Tamron, because at 2.8 in low light it is a bit slow to focus. I use the 24-105 all the time, and fortunaltely my copy is sharp at f/4. For low light you can use the 50 1.4 at 2.8 or wider open, and I think that would cover things.


"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." -- Anais Nin
5Dc Gripped, 6D Gripped, Nikon D300, Olympus OMD-EM1, Fuji XT-20, Pentax 50 1.4, 40mm f/2.8 Pancake, 24-105 mm L, 85mm 1.8, 18-200mm 3.5-5.6, Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8, Tamron 60mm f/2 Macro, 70-200mm f/4 L, etc.
Smugmug: http://paladinphotos.s​mugmug.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,034 views & 0 likes for this thread
Any reason to have a Tamron 28-75 along with a the 17-40 and 24-105?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is AlexRapp
1167 guests, 281 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.