Help! Tamron 28-75 vs Canon 24-105L?

I owned both and I preferred the 24-105. I found the colors a bit better, the autofocus much better not to mention the L build and more range. Both are good lenses though.

I use Tamron 28-75 and I do weddings, portraits as well as it is my walk around lens. It is true that is a littlle slow in very low light cond. but it is very sahrp with excellent colors and is way more cheaper. I always us this lens along with the 70-200 II 2.8 from canon

I got the Tamron for Christmas and traded it in on a 24-105 two weeks ago. Here is my observations.

Don't take any of these observations as an insult to the Tamron. It is a great lens, especially at half the price of the Canon. So if cost is a serious consideration you can't go wrong with it.

1. The Tamron has no Image Stabalization. I found it necessary.
2. Stopping the Tamron down one stop improved the image quality. Mine was not as sharp wide open at 2.8. I've read this is typical.
3. The Canon has better Autofocus
4. The Canon has slightly more contrast.
5. The Canon is slightly sharper.
6. The Canon is built much more solid
7. The Canon is sharp right from F4.

I took some nice shots with the Tamron in the 3 months I had it, but the Canon made so much more sense for me.

it's a decent lens for the price. however, focus is slow and noisy, and there is no manual focus override. mine is soft wide open, especially on the 28mm wide end. it's much better at 75mm though.

I have never used the Tamron, but own the 24-105L and like it a lot.
There is a rebate on the Tamron (until April 30, 2012). Rebate form is at: http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …/043012_TAMRON_​LENSES.pdf .............

Good luck with your decision.

/Rusty

For a crop walk-around I would strongly suggest the 15-85 IS. It is a great lens, 24-135 FF AOV equivalency, and IQ on par with the 24-105. Only downsides are non-constant aperture, easily resolved if you think of it as a f/5.6 that can be dropped lower sometimes if you need it, and lens creep if you leave it partway out at about 35mm-50mm. But that is mitigated by zooming out or in fully before releasing the camera, or better yet, composing your photos before you take them.

yea well, im really looking for EF lens than EF-S since I might upgrade to a FF body later in the future.
i was also looking at the Sigma 17-50 f2.8.

there are ton of articles comparing the sigma 17-50 to the non-vc/vc tamrons and the canon 15-85 and i'm stuck on the sigma 17-50 over the others. so thats another lens that's been on my mind. it's priced at around $670 though.

so far, from what i've been reading, i think im still going to settle with the tamron 28-75.. i think.. lol

the if the canon was only $100 more than the tamron then i'd jump on it, but since there is such a huge price difference i might have to just have to settle with the tamron. plus, i find the f2.8 more appealing than the IS function.

which do y'all think is more practical, the tamron's f2.8 on the 28-75 or the canon's IS on the 24-105?

EDIT: there is one thing that I did overlook about the tamron that I didn't know about, someone said the tamron can't be manual overridden. is this true?
i'm still new to photography and having the manual option would benefit me as a learning curve and making sure i'm getting the sharpest image possible.

You can use manual focus but the Canon has full time manual meaning you could be in auto and just adjust manually.

BFox549 wrote in post #14243175
EDIT: there is one thing that I did overlook about the tamron that I didn't know about, someone said the tamron can't be manual overridden. is this true?
i'm still new to photography and having the manual option would benefit me as a learning curve and making sure i'm getting the sharpest image possible.

tamron does have manual focus, just not full time manual. with FTM lens, there is no need to switch to MANUAL mode while you are shooting, very convenient.

FEChariot wrote in post #14242212
Yep this was my biggest motivator for ditching the Tammy and getting the 24-105. With subjects that will hold still for portraits, the Tammy can be very nice for the money, but with kids that can't hold still, it wasn't working for me. Also the Tammy was too soft at 2.8 for my preferences so I didn't feel like I was loosing that extra stop but I was gaining IS as well as the extra zoom range. At f4, both lenses are fantastic though.

You have amazing words of wisdom!

I'll be honest I'm not a fan of either lens. I do have the Tamron but only because I don't use a standard zoom very much so don't want a lot of money tied up in such a lens. The AF is noisy but it's not a great deal slower than the Canon. I've also used it in low light with centre AF points with great success. I don't like the colours\contrast out of the Tamron, the Canon is definitely better in this regard. The subjects you shoot will determine whether IS is useful to you. If you're shooting subjects that move in lower light conditions then the f2.8 will possibly be more useful than IS. The Tamron I find is sharp wide open in the centre, the edges are soft though. The Canon is again better in this regard. It's really a case of you get what you pay for... Eventually when I have picked up the other lenses that I want (a few years off yet!) I'll get another 24-70L to replace the the Tamron.

Quick test on my 28-75 and 24-105 at f4 didn't show much differences. This on FF. Tamron is defnitely slower than 24-105 for AF. But it is $300 (used) vs $800 used. On a crop might as well spend little more and get 17-55mm f2.8 IS.

FEChariot wrote in post #14242212
Yep this was my biggest motivator for ditching the Tammy and getting the 24-105. With subjects that will hold still for portraits, the Tammy can be very nice for the money, but with kids that can't hold still, it wasn't working for me. Also the Tammy was too soft at 2.8 for my preferences so I didn't feel like I was loosing that extra stop but I was gaining IS as well as the extra zoom range. At f4, both lenses are fantastic though.

With kids, IS does nothing. What you need is fast shutter and wide DOF. the 24-105 can track kids, but I've found that the tamron can easily as well...

You may be getting *soft* shots due to OOF? You gotta remember that 2.8 will give you narrower DOF, so while it gives you faster shutter, it can also take away DOF which you need. Your answer is either Flash + narrow aperture or shoot further back, wide, and crop. I'm having a hard time believing the 28-75 is much worse IQ wise compared to the 24-105mm. Even at 2.8, you get sufficiently sharp centers, which is enough for family portraits, unless you're a heavy pixel peeper

I've found the 24-105mm to be completely unusable in low lighting situations, specifically indoors with incandescent lighting. Heck, even 2.8 is pushing it's limit at that point, shooting at 1600-3200 to get the shutter speed I need. If for any reason, I lost my job and became very poor, I'de go back to the tamron

Charlie wrote in post #14247327
With kids, IS does nothing. What you need is fast shutter and wide DOF. the 24-105 can track kids, but I've found that the tamron can easily as well...

In my experience even the 7D's AF system can't give the slow Tammy AF a fighting chance against any of my USM or HSM glass. If you are getting 90% keepers or better with a 28-75 and 5D2 like I am with my USM and HSM glass, then you got skilz.

Charlie wrote in post #14247327
You may be getting *soft* shots due to OOF? You gotta remember that 2.8 will give you narrower DOF, so while it gives you faster shutter, it can also take away DOF which you need. Your answer is either Flash + narrow aperture or shoot further back, wide, and crop. I'm having a hard time believing the 28-75 is much worse IQ wise compared to the 24-105mm. Even at 2.8, you get sufficiently sharp centers, which is enough for family portraits, unless you're a heavy pixel peeper

I just want to make sure it is understood that I think the IQ of both lenses is comparible at the same apertures. The Tammy really sharpens up at F4 and the 24-105 doesn't have f2.8 where at least my copy of the Tammy was soft. And it wasn't from being OOF as I initially put it through the MFA testing on a tripod of a static subject.

Charlie wrote in post #14247327
I've found the 24-105mm to be completely unusable in low lighting situations, specifically indoors with incandescent lighting. Heck, even 2.8 is pushing it's limit at that point, shooting at 1600-3200 to get the shutter speed I need. If for any reason, I lost my job and became very poor, I'de go back to the tamron

Well If you are not using flash, then I would completly agree that f4 is too slow for indoors and even f2.8 is too at least with my 7D. Your 5D2 would fair better here, but then you would be getting the DOF that I would need to be shooting at f1.8 to equal. Here is where I make sure I don't use aperture to make up for low light if possible. I have too many shots with OOF ears blending into the background from when I was more of a rookie and those pictures do not have the pop I wanted. I pick the DOF I need and if that means I need to use flash, and I am in a situation where I can, I use flash. At my house, I normally set up a couple of speedlights around the room and ratio them wirelessly and use both my 17-50 and 24-105 with nearly 100% keepers. If I can't use flash, then I will break out the primes and do what I have to.

I got a Tamron 28-75 thanks to rave reviews around the interweb and from my friend who is an Lcoholic. So if he likes this lens, it should be worth checking out.

On my 7D, it is so so. Soft on at f2.8. Sharpens up nicely at f4. IQ is fine. I don't like the build quality tbh. AF though is adequate, is buzzy and didn't seem to compliment the 7D's fast AF. I am spoiled by Canon's excellent Ring USM. Also felt a bit narrow on a cropped camera.

However on the 5D, the lens come into its own. Images are sharp even at f2.8. FL is right for general use. It feels natural on the 5iver.

Bottom line for me: OK lens on my 7D. But pretty darn good on the 5iver. My friend that raved about the Tammy does own a FF. So perhaps this lens if more suited for FF camera after all.