Cheapest noticeable upgrade to Tamron 28-75

When I say noticeable upgrade I'm looking for appreciably sharper. I've got the Tam 28-75 2.8 (plus a lot of letters I don't know the meaning of). I like it a lot, but I'd like to get something just a little bit sharper. So obviously I should just save up for a Canon 24-70L version 2. But that's out of my price range.

So I went to The Digital picture http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=0
and looked at everything in this range, mostly checking on the long end. None of the Sigma's appear to be sharper. The Tamron 24-70VC does appear to be quite a bit better but I'm wondering if there is something else in between I'm not aware of?

TL;DR Is there a 24-70 2.8 lens that's less than $900 used, but appreciably better than the Tam 28-75?

The next step up for the criteria that you want, would be a used Canon 24-70 V1 or the Tamron 24-70VC, I would personally rate the Sigma 3rd but that is all prespective. However at the end of the day, I really dont think you will be blown away with that much improved sharpeness from any of these lenses aside from the VC with the Tamron. The 28-75 is a steady performer.

I went through this recently, but I was primarily concerned with the wide end at f/2.8. The Tamron 28-75 is sharper at the wide end than everything else in its range, with the exception of the EF 24-70 f/2.8 II.

Keep in mind that I am talking f/2.8 at the wide end, here:
It is sharped than any of the Sigma offerings.
It is sharper and has less (a lot less) distortion than the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC.
It is sharper than the EF 24-70 f/2.8 v1.
It has equal distortion to the 24-70 f/2.8 II.

I don't use the 70mm end much. I have nothing to offer from that perspective. I do know that you have a gem of a lens in the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. And I know the only upgrade I would consider is the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II. However, I cannot afford that lens.

EDIT:
I would upgrade to the EF 24mm f/1.4L II, if someone dropped $1600 in my lap.

24-70 mk1, but the differences are minor (mostly corners with my copy). Shooting with both the tamron versions 28-75 vs 24-70VC, the differences are much more noticeable.

tommy, not sure how you can compare the 28-75 wide with that of the 24-70VC or even 24-70L v1. the fact that it cant do 24mm, you cant knock other lenses. how can you even compare to other models what it cant do? that's quite a silly comparison.

to answer the TS, yes the 24-70V1 is a good step up from the 28-75. You'll get much more uniform sharpness, but it's a humongous lens, and a pain to carry around.

My comparison was based on wanting something better than the 28-75. I was hoping to find something wider, too. All of my information is based on professional reviews and user comments. I have never owned any of the lenses I mentioned, except the 28-75. It is a personal decision that none of them offer what I was looking for, wider and sharper at f/2.8, except the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II. It did not make sense to me to 'upgrade' to any one of the Sigmas, only to get more distortion and softer at f/2.8. Nor did the huge distortion the Tamron 24-70 VC displays at f/2.8 & 24mm seem like much of an improvement. The Canon 24-70 v1 is going for $1200 to $1300 used; the v2 is signifcanlty better at f/2.8 and 24mm, and is available refurbed for $1800. My Tamron 28-75 cost me $300, used. If I have to spend well in excess of $1,000 to upgrade it, I will go for the best. And that is the Canon v2. I don't see the point of spending 5 times what my current lens cost to get a mediocre, if any increase in IQ where I want it. As I mentioned in my edit, the 24mm f/1.4L II, would serve me better than any of the zooms mentioned in this thread. It is also cheaper than the 24-70 2.8 II. This is my thought process and applies only to my shooting and my wants and needs. As usual, each of us must make our own final decisions.

I'm putting this here, rather then a PM, so the world can see.

If you do go with the Tamron 24-70, and if you're not in a rush, I'll probably be selling mine next week. Waiting to hear something unrelated that will be the deciding factor. Let me know if you think you'd be interested.

Tommy1957 wrote in post #16170904
My comparison was based on wanting something better than the 28-75. I was hoping to find something wider, too. All of my information is based on professional reviews and user comments. I have never owned any of the lenses I mentioned, except the 28-75. It is a personal decision that none of them offer what I was looking for, wider and sharper at f/2.8, except the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II. It did not make sense to me to 'upgrade' to any one of the Sigmas, only to get more distortion and softer at f/2.8. Nor did the huge distortion the Tamron 24-70 VC displays at f/2.8 & 24mm seem like much of an improvement. The Canon 24-70 v1 is going for $1200 to $1300 used; the v2 is signifcanlty better at f/2.8 and 24mm, and is available refurbed for $1800. My Tamron 28-75 cost me $300, used. If I have to spend well in excess of $1,000 to upgrade it, I will go for the best. And that is the Canon v2. I don't see the point of spending 5 times what my current lens cost to get a mediocre, if any increase in IQ where I want it. As I mentioned in my edit, the 24mm f/1.4L II, would serve me better than any of the zooms mentioned in this thread. It is also cheaper than the 24-70 2.8 II. This is my thought process and applies only to my shooting and my wants and needs. As usual, each of us must make our own final decisions.

well if a prime is for you, then that's that, but to say the increase is mediocre... well that's really really stretching it. this thread is really about upgrading zooms. Either of the canon's or tamron vc are a noticeable upgrade. the 28-75 is a decent lens for sure, but it's not on the L/VC level. I still own it and shot with it not too long ago.

it's certainly a great value, but to say that other lenses offer little more is quite the stretch.

travisvwright wrote in post #16170217
When I say noticeable upgrade I'm looking for appreciably sharper. I've got the Tam 28-75 2.8 (plus a lot of letters I don't know the meaning of). I like it a lot, but I'd like to get something just a little bit sharper. So obviously I should just save up for a Canon 24-70L version 2. But that's out of my price range.

So I went to The Digital picture http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=0
and looked at everything in this range, mostly checking on the long end. None of the Sigma's appear to be sharper. The Tamron 24-70VC does appear to be quite a bit better but I'm wondering if there is something else in between I'm not aware of?

TL;DR Is there a 24-70 2.8 lens that's less than $900 used, but appreciably better than the Tam 28-75?

Hmm tamorn 28-75 is actually pretty sharp, you'd probably need quite a good find copy of a 24-70 I and one that hadn't had the 70mm go soft issue for sure to beat it (or even tie it, the ones that have gone soft, forget that). I've paid most attention to the short end of these types of zooms when comparing them. The 24-70 II is MAD sharp center frame 70mm. 24-70 f/4 IS doesn't seem to be as sharp center frame as the 24-70 II but might have better edges at 70mm. If you love the long side, the 70-300L and 70-200 2.8 IS II deliver top notch 70mm, probably better overall than any 24-70/105 sort of lens does (although center frame my 24-70 II did beat even the 70-300L at 70mm, not at the edges though). I haven't tried the tamron 24-70 VC but that might be a decent bet that costs less than the 24-70 II, although I doubt it is as sharp center frame, certainly not near f/2.8.

At 70mm do you care mostly about center frame? edges and corners too? mostly wide open? mostly f/8? everything? does it need f/2.8?

Charlie wrote in post #16171150
well if a prime is for you, then that's that, but to say the increase is mediocre... well that's really really stretching it. this thread is really about upgrading zooms. Either of the canon's or tamron vc are a noticeable upgrade. the 28-75 is a decent lens for sure, but it's not on the L/VC level. I still own it and shot with it not too long ago.

it's certainly a great value, but to say that other lenses offer little more is quite the stretch.

My Tamron 28-75 2.8 is sharper at the wide end at least which is what I was mostly concerned about than any 24-105L I have ever tried.


Keeping in mind I have never tried the Tamron 24-70 VC and I am ignoring primes here:

On the wide side I rate the 24-70 II and 24-70 f/4 IS the best at f/8, those two pull it off well even on 22MP high density FF. The 24-70 I and 24-105 are a good ways back. The 28-75 tamron is a bit of a ways back, better than the old canons I think though whether comparing 28mm to 24mm or 28mm to 28mm (certainly than the 24-105 at least, my tanron was definitely better FF edges and corners than the 24-105s and sharper center frame too). sigma 24-70 ain't so hot. 28-135 is wayyyyyyyy behind.

On the wide side at 24mm f/4, only the 24-70 II really stands out as decent. 24-70 f/4 IS gets second, but it's definitely not as good, but much better than 24-105 and the lot.

As for 70mm, I never looked into that quite as much but I can say that the 24-70 II has the best center sharpness out of 24-105, 70-300L, 70-200 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/4 IS, tamron 28-75. At the edges the 70-300L and 70-200 f/4 IS and perhaps 24-70 f/4 IS are the best. Then I think 24-70 II behind those and then probably tamron last since it is prone to some nasty double bokeh on FF at the long end and the edges seem pretty soft until well stopped down. I never really bothered to compare the 24-105 at 70mm much, so I can't say, some say 70mm is near it's best zone. The Tamron 28-75 wasn't too bad in the center and could be very sharp stopped down there at 75mm.

If you care about AF speed, jsut about any other option has faster to much faster AF than the 28-75 which is about as slow as any lens I've ever tried.

Have you considered the new Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro (OS) HSM? That lens can use the new dock so you can optimize focus. There is a rebate going on so you can get it for around $500.

John from PA wrote in post #16171193
Have you considered the new Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro (OS) HSM? That lens can use the new dock so you can optimize focus. There is a rebate going on so you can get it for around $500.

Yes, the OP didn't mention it but I do believe he is using a crop camera so there are a lot of other options for him.

The Sigma 17-70, 17-50, Tamron 17-50, and Canon 17-55 are all worth considering.

msowsun wrote in post #16171205
Yes, the OP didn't mention it but I do believe he is using a crop camera so there are a lot of other options for him.

The Sigma 17-70, 17-50, Tamron 17-50, and Canon 17-55 are all worth considering.

aps-c interesting.

anyway my tamron 28-75 2.8 was mad sharp on aps-c corner to corner across the range, certainly stopped down a little. The other like tamron 17-50 2.8 and 17-55 I think are basically similar only wider, some with IS, all with at least a bit and sometimes much faster AF. Considering that he was looking at mostly the long end of 28-75 and 24-105 I'm not sure these ones are the way to go for him though.

a 24-70 II could pull off corner to corner to utter perfection on aps-c, from fairly close to wide open; a 24-70 f/4 IS might do a decent job of that too other than near 50mm.

travisvwright wrote in post #16170217
So I went to The Digital picture http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=0and looked at everything in this range, mostly checking on the long end. None of the Sigma's appear to be sharper. The Tamron 24-70VC does appear to be quite a bit better but I'm wondering if there is something else in between I'm not aware of?

If I was to use The Digital Picture as a guide when buying lenses, I would have my camera body and no lenses at all. I tested all of my lenses and compared them against TDP results, and honestly, I really don't know where these guys do get their stuff from.

Mag-1981 wrote in post #16171210
If I was to use The Digital Picture as a guide when buying lenses, I would have my camera body and no lenses at all. I tested all of my lenses and compared them against TDP results, and honestly, I really don't know where these guys do get their stuff from.

I somewhat agree with that. Although they are still useful to an extent, but certainly I have found plenty that didn't match. They tend to really show almost all tamrons as dreadful, not sure why.

I find photozone.de results more often match what I see (although I tend to ignore his final star ratings and text since he does some weird things there, his charts seems pretty good though). Lens Rentals hasn't tested much, but they have tested many copies of whatever they have tested.