Which Tamron 28-75 f2.8?

I am in the market for a fast ( f2.8 ) relatively wide zoom to shoot halftime activities at night HS football games, and to shoot indoor basketball this Fall. I have looked at the Sigma 24-70 EX and the Canon L, but I have read a lot of great comments about the Tamron 28-75. Problem is, everybody just calls it the Tamron 28-75 and there are two Tamron 28-75 f2.8's out ther, the Tamron SP AF28-75MM F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) and the Tamron AF 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di Zoom. They are both about the same price.

So, which is better?

Thanks,

Dennis

They're the same ...

Doh! OK, how does this lens stack up against the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX? I have the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and so far am very pleased with it, but it's just too long to shoot in close quarters, and the Canon L's are just too much money.

Also, is this range of lenses appropriate for shooting indoor basketball, or would the 70-200 be more appropriate?

Thanks again.

They're indeed the same. I have a copy of it and I'm very happy with this lens. Sharp, fast, lightweight and cheap considered the alternatives. I've never met or heard one who was disappointed with this lens.

PeteR.

According to Pop Photo http://www.popphoto.co​m the Tamron outperforms the Sigma. The Sigma 24-60 EX looks like it would be comparable to the Tamron if you want the wider field of view.

And according to Practical Photography [UK], the older "DF" 24-70EX outperforms the Tamron. This issue is discussed to death. Get a good copy of either and you'll have yourself a lovely lens. If $ isn't an issue, get the 24-70L. I like the Sigma 24-70 much more but many like the Tamron. At FM, both have about a 83% "recommended" rating, or thereabouts. See my site for test shots.

dmwierz, there are many threads on this subject and both lenses seem to be favorites with those who own them. I have the Tamron and really like it. It should be wide enough to capture the half-time shows, but you should do a quick test by taking your 28-135 and seeing how much of the field you can actually capture at 28 mm.

I'm not sure you'll be able to really shoot into the action for the basketball games, if you are looking to get that close. Your 120-300 should work well for that.

Both seem about the same optically. It really depends on what you want in a lens. The Sigma is a much larger heavier lens, and the Tamron is smaller, and lighter. I'm sure you will be happy with both. I have the Tamron and its been a fantastic lens for me.

I agree with "BigBlueDodge". I did the evaluation a few months ago and found very similar performance. I went with the Tamron because the Sigma I tested had some front focussing problems at 24mm. From what I have read there are examples of both lenses that have similar issues. The secret is to run a quick check on the lens before you walk away with it. Either lens will be fantastic as long as you can get a good copy.

Don't take the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 as a guide... it's better than just about any other zoom you'll ever pick up...

To all, thanks for the info. Regarding the 28-135, it's just too SLOW for the halftime cheerleader stuff - that's the lens I have been using. Even with a flash, I'm having all kinds of trouble freezing their movements. I've used my 120-300 a bit durng halftime, and this does the same excellent job that it does during the game, but I have to shoot the cheerleaders and band members from WAY back to get their entire bodies in frame. Maybe I'll give my 50mm f1.8 a go to see if it does any better.

I owned the Tamron and the Sigma and you should just buy which you prefer. I like the heavier weight of the Sigma and wider 24mm but would have been perfectly happy to have kept the Tamron too.

dmwierz wrote:

While I'm very pleased with my tamron 28-75, I don't think it will do a good job in the settings you describe. The focus is fast enough for daytime/outdoor b-ball, but it hunts in low light. Get something that's at least f2.8 and has either USM (canon) or HSM (sigma). Slower focussing lenses might not cut it. For the purposes you're describing I shoot with my sigma 70-200. You might also consider one of the canon primes in the 85 to 135 mm range, those should really work well for you if you can do without zoom.

Oh, I hadn't realized the Tamron didn't have the equivalent of HSM or USM.

Thanks.

I just noticed that Sigma offers a 24-60, a 24-70 and a 28-70, all in f2.8 EX. What are the differences between these three seemingly similar lenses? They are priced approx the same, and the only things I see in the specs that appears different is the 24-70 is also described specifically as a macro lens.

It seems the 24-60 is touted as a compact lens, but all these lenses cover such a similar focal range and all are constant f2.8 lenses that I wonder why they offer all three?