Selling my 24-70 for a tamron

Well after going through my old pictures I finally decided to buy the tamron again, I will wait until the 24-70 2.8 II come out to jump back to that lens. I hope canon adds is. The image quality are identical and also I can pick up another prime to go with my setup

which tamron are you referring to? do they make a 24-70 equivalent?

sometimes i wonder if i should switch to a 17-50 non vc tamron as a better all around lens but it's hard to let go of the L. like you said though i'm sure you'll be back.

Sorry the 28-75 2.8

Sample picture with my old tamron 28-75 2.8. this is good enough for me

That answers my question.

Have the 28-75 as well and so far am pretty happy with it.

I sold my 24-105L IS f4 for the Tamron 28-75 f2.8
I will get the 24-70 2.8 L IS MK2 some day, when It appears on the horizon and I have the money (off course)
So far, I have to say I am very happy with the Tamron, love how light it is, small and sharp, and the AF is not bad at all.
But i admit I lust for the future L f/2.8, but I dont expect it this year

I agree with both of you. at the time I was worrying about the look of the lens and not the image, but since the image is so close. I can't justify paying over $800 dollar for 24-70L. I will just add a 50 1.4 and call it a day for now

The Tamron and the Canon L are not even in the same league as far as IQ.. I guess if you don't utilize the sharpness of the L over that zoom range, or need the cash it's a good move, but I've never once thought "hmm, I wish the lens was less sharp.."

http://the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=0

After sending the 24-70L to CPS Platinum complaining about IQ I got it calibrated (threw 200+ bucks at them). Now my 24-70L seems like a completely different lens in the IQ department.

Using the xrite passport I think most decent quality lenses will give great IQ. I would think the canon L would have better colour rendition and the USM AF will be leaps ahead of the tamron AF motor especially in challenging light.

Bottom line is if the tammy works for your workflow thats what counts.

junior, I'd warm up that photo a tad for that warm fuzzy "awww" children portrait.

Downs Photography wrote in post #12253201
Sample picture with my old tamron 28-75 2.8. this is good enough for me

Ha, I remember when you sold your Tamron. I was looking at that one and loved the pic you posted. It has been a great mid range lens (price and length) for me to this point. Good luck!

BrandonSi wrote in post #12253281
The Tamron and the Canon L are not even in the same league as far as IQ..

Yea. At f/5.6 the Tamron is sharper in the center!!!

http://the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=3

Bottom line, don't go 100% by those charts.

Downs Photography wrote in post #12253268
I agree with both of you. at the time I was worrying about the look of the lens and not the image, but since the image is so close. I can't justify paying over $800 dollar for 24-70L. I will just add a 50 1.4 and call it a day for now

I remember when you had the Tamron for a short time and went with the Canon, I thought the exact same thing, you said. Why where you upgrading so soon?? you hadn't had the Tammy long enough to justify, oh well lesson learned. That fact that you have recognised this is a good thing. I have the 28-75 which I like a lot but if money wasn't an object it would have been the Canon hands down.

SCOTTinNJ wrote in post #12253509
Yea. At f/5.6 the Tamron is sharper in the center!!!

http://the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=3

Bottom line, don't go 100% by those charts.

right, but that's not at f2.8 !

www.photozone.com comparisons show them a lot closer in image resolution

SCOTTinNJ wrote in post #12253509
Yea. At f/5.6 the Tamron is sharper in the center!!!

http://the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=3

Bottom line, don't go 100% by those charts.

Sure, by a small amount, but it in now way overshadows the drastic difference in sharpness when at 2.8, 3.2, etc.. If all I shot at was 5.6 I wouldn't bother with either of the lenses. That's why I said in my post "if you don't need the sharpness.."

If you don't need it to be that sharp at 2.8, 3.2, 4.0, then I 100% understand selling the Canon and replacing it with a Tamron. But to sell it because one thinks they provide equivalent image quality is a mistake, IMO. Sure, at 5.6 the tamron may be a hair sharper, but the reason people buy the lens is for 2.8. And at 2.8 the two are not even close.

BrandonSi wrote in post #12253730
Sure, by a small amount, but it in now way overshadows the drastic difference in sharpness when at 2.8, 3.2, etc.. If all I shot at was 5.6 I wouldn't bother with either of the lenses. That's why I said in my post "if you don't need the sharpness.."

If you don't need it to be that sharp at 2.8, 3.2, 4.0, then I 100% understand selling the Canon and replacing it with a Tamron. But to sell it because one thinks they provide equivalent image quality is a mistake, IMO. Sure, at 5.6 the tamron may be a hair sharper, but the reason people buy the lens is for 2.8. And at 2.8 the two are not even close.

My point wasn't so much that you could just shoot them at f/5.6. It was that those charts aren't always accurate.

Even so, I'd readily admit that the corners and borders look way sharper on the 24-70 at all apertures. But for me anyway, that's of much less concern than the center.