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 14 Jan 2014 (Tuesday) 18:20
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Cheapest 24-70mm f2.8 => than Tamron 28-75mm f2.8?????

 
Ralph ­ III
Goldmember
1,345 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Alabama
     
Jan 14, 2014 18:20 |  #1

Hello All,
What would be the least expensive 24-70mm f2.8 lens that is equal to or better than the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8? The age and brand is of no consequence. I'm just looking for something that is sharp and with excellent bokeh. I'd like to keep it under $700.00 if possible but haven't seen anything in that price range?

FYI, I like my Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 but really need the extra 4mm on the wide end. The Sigma 24-60mm could be a consideration as well if someone can make a direct comparison and/or first hand experience. That lens just seems to be a hit and miss.

I have a Canon 40d, btw.

Thanks,
Ralph


"SOUTHERN and SAVED!"
POTN FEEDBACK...............ITEMS FOR SALE

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
EOS5DC
Senior Member
791 posts
Joined Dec 2013
     
Jan 14, 2014 23:13 |  #2
bannedPermanent ban

I own the 28-75. I think, from reviews and user comments, that the Tamron 24-70 VC, the Canon 24-70 II, and 24-70 4 are better optically than the 28-75. They are also significantly more expensive. If I had unlimited funds, I'd get the 24-70II. None of the better lenses are worth the cost, to me. Tamron 28-75: $300. Canon 24-70 II: $2300. I can't justify 8 times the price for what that lens offers. Lots of other folks can, and do.


Bodies: 60D, 6D.
EFs: 15-85, 10-22
EF: 28-75, 35 f/2 IS, Σ70-200 OS, 100-400L
Flash: 580EX II, 430 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Evan ­ Idler
Goldmember
Avatar
1,600 posts
Likes: 4
Joined May 2005
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
     
Jan 14, 2014 23:51 |  #3

Have you considered the Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8, for when you need the extra width?

--Evan


Canon5DIII + Some L + Some non L + Some Sigma + Some Tamron + other stuff....
Patiently awaiting a winning Lottery Ticket to afford all the toys I would really like :-P

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EOS5DC
Senior Member
791 posts
Joined Dec 2013
     
Jan 15, 2014 00:57 |  #4
bannedPermanent ban

OP, I wouldn't buy a lens for 4mm more of reach at either end. Taking a big step backward will get you that much difference. If you need wider get a WIDER lens. As E I states, various flavors of 17-5x are available. If you need really wide, the 10-22 and variants are surely all you'll ever need.


Bodies: 60D, 6D.
EFs: 15-85, 10-22
EF: 28-75, 35 f/2 IS, Σ70-200 OS, 100-400L
Flash: 580EX II, 430 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MakisM1
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,580 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 352
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Jan 15, 2014 08:17 |  #5

I will chime in with the crop-only 17-xx f2.8 crowd. The 24-70 is long on the wide end for a crop. The 15-85 is directly equivalent (the 15 that is..) to the FF field of view and many people love the lens. My point of view is that if I bought an upgrade lens, the f5.6 on the long end is unacceptable.

So, Tamron 17-50 non-VC ($499 at B&H) or Tamron 17-50 VC ($649 at B&H) or Sigma 17-50 ($549 at B&H) even the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.0 ($449 at B&H) not because of the price, but because it is compatible with the USB dock.

I don't know enough about any of the above, they have their fans and their detractors in the forums, do your due diligence :D


Gerry
Canon 5D MkIII/Canon 60D/Canon EF-S 18-200/Canon EF 24-70L USM II/Canon EF 70-200L 2.8 USM II/Canon EF 50 f1.8 II/Σ 8-16/ 430 EXII
OS: Linux Ubuntu/PostProcessing: Darktable/Image Processing: GIMP

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
botw
Goldmember
Avatar
1,154 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Potomac, MD
     
Jan 15, 2014 15:28 |  #6

The Sigma 24-70 HSM is pretty nice and in your price range. Certainly a faster and better focuser than the Tamron. IQ may come down to copy variation.


www.gc5photography.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EOS5DC
Senior Member
791 posts
Joined Dec 2013
     
Jan 15, 2014 15:43 |  #7
bannedPermanent ban

botw wrote in post #16608443 (external link)
The Sigma 24-70 HSM is pretty nice and in your price range. Certainly a faster and better focuser than the Tamron. IQ may come down to copy variation.

I guess that comes down to what you shoot. I am happy with the 28-75. I even liked it on my 5D with the center AF-point.


Bodies: 60D, 6D.
EFs: 15-85, 10-22
EF: 28-75, 35 f/2 IS, Σ70-200 OS, 100-400L
Flash: 580EX II, 430 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frugivore
Goldmember
Avatar
3,089 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 118
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Jan 15, 2014 15:55 |  #8

I agree with the others. I loved the Sigma 17-50mm OS when I had the 40D. I don't think you'll get any significant improvement with a full frame standard zoom.

What other lenses do you have?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
eddie3dfx
Senior Member
486 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Sep 2009
     
Jan 15, 2014 17:07 |  #9

Ralph III wrote in post #16605942 (external link)
Hello All,
What would be the least expensive 24-70mm f2.8 lens that is equal to or better than the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8? The age and brand is of no consequence. I'm just looking for something that is sharp and with excellent bokeh. I'd like to keep it under $700.00 if possible but haven't seen anything in that price range?

FYI, I like my Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 but really need the extra 4mm on the wide end. The Sigma 24-60mm could be a consideration as well if someone can make a direct comparison and/or first hand experience. That lens just seems to be a hit and miss.

I have a Canon 40d, btw.

Thanks,
Ralph

I had both the 28-75 2.8 and the sigma 24-60 2.8
The sigma I felt was much sharper and better lens overall, but it's bokeh at 2.8 left much to be desired... not what I would call typical sigma bokeh... I had a sigma 30 at the time for portraits.
The 24-60 imho is a really good landscape lens for a zoom.. stepped up it's just very sharp.. I liked it a lot, but had to get rid of it when I picked up the canon 24-105.
Even though the sigma isn't a macro lens, you can get nice close up shots with it.

If you are needing the 2.8, why not just get a prime for portraits?
That or a tamron 17-55 2.8 lens, which is a lot better than the 28-75 version.

Just a quick note.. I took a lot of pictures with all 3 lenses and the 24-105 is by far the most superior.


Canon 6D, Canon L 24-105, Zeiss Distagon 28mm 2.8, Planar 50mm 1.4, Planar 85mm 1.4, Sonnar 135mm 2.8 & Zeiss Mutar 2x, Canon 50mm 1.8
http://www.edwinraffph​otography.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
canon1966
Junior Member
29 posts
Joined Dec 2013
     
Jan 15, 2014 17:17 |  #10
bannedPermanent ban

I had the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non VC and wouldn't hesitate to buy another one for the right price. A couple weeks ago I borrowed my buddies Sigma 17-50 OS and I was very impressed.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ralph ­ III
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,345 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Alabama
     
Jan 15, 2014 18:49 as a reply to  @ canon1966's post |  #11

Thanks for the replies! BTW, I have a Canon 40d, Canon 15-85mm and Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 and numerous pro flashes. I just sold my Tamron 70-300mm Di VC but may continue with a lens shake-up.

---------------

Without going into significant detail, I'm ultimately looking for two things.

1) A nice portrait lens.* This is what I reserved my Tamron 28-75mm for. I would like to maintain a high degree of IQ (such as my 15-85mm delivers) but with excellent isolation/bokeh. So if I can replace the Tammy with something even better then great!

2) A versatile walk around lens. This is what I have reserved my Canon 15-85mm for. I no longer have a long lens though so I'm thinking about replacing the 15-85mm with either the Sigma 18-250mm Macro or the soon to be released Sigma 18-200mm, if reviews are good.

Yes, I may suffer some IQ loss but I hope such can easily be fixed in post processing. I will use my Portrait lens when the greatest of IQ is desired.

I've thought about fixed lenses but it's hard to chase our little girls around with such, having had two nifty fifties but selling each. Maybe I can give another fixed lens a try? Or maybe I should consider such as a 17-50mm 2.8? Does anyone have any experience with the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di II LD lens?

Thanks,
Ralph


"SOUTHERN and SAVED!"
POTN FEEDBACK...............ITEMS FOR SALE

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,117 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6182
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jan 15, 2014 19:10 |  #12

Ralph III wrote in post #16608951 (external link)
I've thought about fixed lenses but it's hard to chase our little girls around with such, having had two nifty fifties but selling each. Maybe I can give another fixed lens a try? Or maybe I should consider such as a 17-50mm 2.8? Does anyone have any experience with the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di II LD lens?

Thanks,
Ralph

yes, people in this thread have mentioned Tamron 17-50 non VC which is the same thing.

The AF isnt the greatest, and it wont replace the 28-75 as a portrait lens, but works well if you need wider. AF is on par with your 28-75, so no surprises.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
elitejp
Goldmember
1,766 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 204
Joined Mar 2008
     
Jan 16, 2014 01:54 as a reply to  @ Charlie's post |  #13

what about getting a prime?

sorry just saw someone recommended that.

Ive read good things about the sigma 17 70 but that goes up to f4. Im not sure if thats an issue for you.


6D; canon 85mm 1.8, Tamron 24-70mm VC, Canon 135L Canon 70-200L is ii

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,348 posts
Gallery: 1718 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 10816
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Jan 16, 2014 03:09 |  #14

Ralph III wrote in post #16608951 (external link)
1) A nice portrait lens.* This is what I reserved my Tamron 28-75mm for. I would like to maintain a high degree of IQ (such as my 15-85mm delivers) but with excellent isolation/bokeh. So if I can replace the Tammy with something even better then great!

2) A versatile walk around lens. This is what I have reserved my Canon 15-85mm for. I no longer have a long lens though so I'm thinking about replacing the 15-85mm with either the Sigma 18-250mm Macro or the soon to be released Sigma 18-200mm, if reviews are good.

Yes, I may suffer some IQ loss but I hope such can easily be fixed in post processing. I will use my Portrait lens when the greatest of IQ is desired.

I've thought about fixed lenses but it's hard to chase our little girls around with such, having had two nifty fifties but selling each. Maybe I can give another fixed lens a try? Or maybe I should consider such as a 17-50mm 2.8? Does anyone have any experience with the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di II LD lens?

Thanks,
Ralph

Heya,

1) Get a good prime instead of a zoom then. 35mm F2 IS, or 85mm F1.8. All the isolation you need. Pick the focal range that suits you (normal view, or telephoto). They can both isolate. It just depends on your setup and if you're doing it indoors, outdoors, etc. The closer you are with the 35mm, the more isolation. Same thing with the 85mm, but you still have more distance between you and the subject with the 85mm. If you're ok with getting within a few feet of your subject, the 35mm if very nice. If you want to be further away, like 10 feet or so, look to the 85mm. Get both maybe. I use these for portraits on a crop. Both full body & portrait. Great focal lengths on a crop for this. I wouldn't trade them for a zoom, at all. At least, not one that doesn't cost $3k basically. Even then, those zooms don't do F2 and F1.8.

2) Here's where you get your zoom. Get the 18-200mm. Covers all bases.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

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

3,059 views & 0 likes for this thread
Cheapest 24-70mm f2.8 => than Tamron 28-75mm f2.8?????
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 amdcasin
1807 guests, 277 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.