Selling my 24-70 for a tamron

SCOTTinNJ wrote in post #12253819
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.

I always wonder about those charts.

How old was the lens they used? In the mean time, is it possible that Tamron improved its manufacturing tech? Did they take sample variation into account?

Otherwise, in terms of real-world shots taken with the 28-75, I have no reason to doubt that it is at least 90% as good as the Canon, optically speaking, at a fraction of the weight and cost. Of course its AF will never compare.

We must also remember that IF Canon releases a 24-70 2.8L II IS, it will most likely cost north of $2K, only expanding the gulf between the Canon and its lesser competitors. Though I also am 99% confident that IF Canon takes another swing at the 24-70 range, it will be THE nearly perfect lens for that task. If it weighs two-thirds of the current model, then it will be the perfect lens for its task.

I think this discussion is futile
Is the Tamron a good lens and a good value? Yes it is
Is the Canon better? Yessss (USM, FTMF, Better build, Sharper on the edges and sharper wide open)
Do I need the Canon? Maybe I do , maybe I dont
Do I have the the funds at this time? No (That is a biggie) so I will stay with the Tamron until then

I will however jump on the Mk2 version with IS when it comes out, just because

I would love to be able to sell my 24-70 L and buy more lenses, but I've had too many problems with Tamron lenses in low light. I went through several 17-50's and tried a 28-75 but wasn't happy with the focus speed or accuracy.

I think in controlled environments the Tamron is awesome, but I think the canon L blows it away when the environment isn't just right.

I owned both lenses both are very good but for me there is a big difference between 28 and 24 and the Canon will focus better with full time manual plus USM but the L is not fun to carry. Someone suggested a 24-105 + Tamron for the price of the Canon and thats really a pretty good combo considering you can have both for about the same price. Still as much as I hate the size and weight I find the 24-70 to be an amazing lens and as much as I hate to lug it around I love the images I get with it.

- EDIT plus what shotbytom said, my old Tamron hunted like crazy in dim light. Same with the 50 1.4 ( another great lens that is not so great when the light is low )

I love my Tamron although I wish it had the Canon USM.

Tommydigi wrote in post #12253908
Someone suggested a 24-105 + Tamron for the price of the Canon and thats really a pretty good combo considering you can have both for about the same price.

That may have been me in another thread. That's what I've got now.

borism wrote in post #12253895
I think this discussion is futile
Is the Tamron a good lens and a good value? Yes it is
Is the Canon better? Yessss (USM, FTMF, Better build, Sharper on the edges and sharper wide open)

Agreed.

I would consider a used 24-105 over the Tamron if money is an issue.

I also want the sigma 85 1.4 that was 1 of my biggest reasons

Thanks for the post, I've got the Tamron and keep debating on whether to switch to the Canon. I think I'll wait to see what the next version brings.

I just sold my 24-105. It was an excellent copy but not what want.

My options at the moment are...

Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM (the worst of the three I can gather)
Tamron 28-75 2.8 (the best value of the three)
Wait for the 24-70 2.8L II IS...could be waiting for years...

Or not invest in glass at all right now because prices are so inflated.

I love my Tamron and the Canon 24-70s I've used didn't seem any sharper, even wide open.

Those charts that people link to are silly, for the most part only a single copy of a lens is tested which is far from reliable. And yet other lenses if you read the review they state that they tried three different copies to ensure they had a good one.

BrandonSi wrote in post #12253281
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

I'm not trusting those comparisin charts, don't know if they have good copy or not for any lens.

If I want to find out about IQ for real life images, I'm looking for real life pictures taken.
Same lens, different copies, different photographers and cameras tells me a lot more then any single test with b/w charts pictures limited to one body and one lens copy.
For example, POTN lens archive. After your comment about Tammi IQ I went through last pages at 24-70 and 28-75 threads, twice. Didn't find any big IQ difference at all.
I was looking for sharp pictures at both threads.

But if you prefer test sites here is one:
http://www.photozone.d​e …28-canon2470f28ff?start=2
http://www.photozone.d​e …tamron_2875_28_​5d?start=2

They gave 24-70 only three * from five.
Tammi is two and half * for IQ.
I can live with half star missing for IQ and with extra 800USD in my pocket

watt100 wrote in post #12253725
right, but that's not at f2.8 !

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

That's a porn site... photozone.de is what you are looking for...:o

Thanks for pointing out the photozone results.

The Tamron scores **** on the "value" scale whereas the Canon scores only **1/2.

I found this result shocking:

Canon