Used Canon 24-70L 2.8 (verson 1), new Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, or keep Tamron 28-75 2.8?

About to drop some cash on a couple of lenses but I wanted some honest opinions. I currently have a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8. It's been a great performer, but I'm thinking about upgrading it in my up coming spend. I'm thinking about switching to a new Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 VC or a used Canon 24-70L.

They both appear to be great performers. I've used the 24-70L in the past on an XSi and honestly I wasn't blown away but now on a 5DII and/or 50D I'm hopeful to get better results from it. I prefer primes for portraits, which is why I'm also getting a 135L to accompany my 85 1.8, but after second shooting a wedding with a friend of mine a couple weeks ago I realize that the versatility of a fast zoom in the 24-70mm range could be very convenient coupled with a 70-200mm (another upcoming purchase).

So bottom line question is: would you switch the Tammy 28-75 for a 24-70? And if you would, would you go with a new Tamron 24-70 VC or a used 24-70L?

**edit**
IS or VC is not a necessity

I've owned all three, and my impression is that the 24-70L can do 24 (love landscapes, but not really useful for weddings save a few creative shots), so if you can afford it, certainly go that route. The 24-70 tamron is easily the best among the three choices. It's a little sharper and contrast might even be better than the L. Downside is that it doesnt have a red ring which may be important in your atmosphere, and it doesnt have the huge size, which has been know to part crowds when pointed.

Heya,

I'd go Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC. It's better than the 28-75 that you're already used to, but it's better in all ways. Sure, it's a costly upgrade, and it's not a massive upgrade, but it's an upgrade none the less, if you're looking to sharpen up. It's a very good alternative to the 24-70L MK2 which is double the price, while being pretty much as good as it is.

24-70 and 70-200 are excellent for most shoots on two separate bodies. It's a good way to go.

Very best,

I'll agree that both the EF 24-70 and the Tammy 24-70 2.8s may be better than the 28-75. That is not the question. The question is: Is the little bit of difference worth $1,000 it will cost you to upgrade. Not in my book. I am keeping my 28-75.

EOS5DC wrote in post #16681740
I'll agree that both the EF 24-70 and the Tammy 24-70 2.8s may be better than the 28-75. That is not the question. The question is: Is the little bit of difference worth $1,000 it will cost you to upgrade. Not in my book. I am keeping my 28-75.

I am in the exact same boat, in regards to upgrading my 28-75 and to me I'll keep mine as well.

I have no experience with either lens, normally I go to the Digital Picture for a quick comparison:

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

It shows the 28-75 to be clearly inferior wide open. Actually it looks so blurry that it makes me wonder whether they got a bad copy...

EOS5DC wrote in post #16681740
I'll agree that both the EF 24-70 and the Tammy 24-70 2.8s may be better than the 28-75. That is not the question. The question is: Is the little bit of difference worth $1,000 it will cost you to upgrade. Not in my book. I am keeping my 28-75.

strictly for people photography, probably not. The 28-75 and 24-70L were very close optically, 24-70 tamron was a clear notch above and also has VC. TS doesnt need VC, so how badly does edge sharpness and contrast matter? That's what you're paying for. The 24-70L and tamron have much better edge sharpness.

Probably wont make a big difference honestly.

if you want full time manual, silent and fast autofocus, really good edge sharpness, better contrast, 24mm, weather sealing, build quality, go for the L/Tamron VC, otherwise save your money. The difference is 7-900, and you're getting quite a bit for the difference.

MakisM1 wrote in post #16681973
I have no experience with either lens, normally I go to the Digital Picture for a quick comparison:

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

It shows the 28-75 to be clearly inferior wide open. Actually it looks so blurry that it makes me wonder whether they got a bad copy...

no, that's about right. The 28-75 is poor in the corners, but center sharpness is really good. With event photography corners dont matter too much/at all. It never really sharpens up well either. I only hesitate to recommend higher end gear because TS has interest in primes. I'de give the existing 28-75 a run at a wedding before totally discounting it.

MakisM1 wrote in post #16681973
I have no experience with either lens, normally I go to the Digital Picture for a quick comparison:

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

It shows the 28-75 to be clearly inferior wide open. Actually it looks so blurry that it makes me wonder whether they got a bad copy...

I am guessing a bad copy, or bad test procedure. I cranked both up to f/4 and the results are just as ugly. IMHO, the 28-75 is better than Bryan is showing it to be. If I get a minute, I'll do some comparisons. How about Tamron 28-75 against the 35 IS?

Charlie wrote in post #16681987
no, that's about right. The 28-75 is poor in the corners, but center sharpness is really good. With event photography corners dont matter too much/at all. It never really sharpens up well either. I only hesitate to recommend higher end gear because TS has interest in primes. I'de give the existing 28-75 a run at a wedding before totally discounting it.

I think I might just do that except at something a little more "low key" than a wedding. I've got a navy commissioning ceremony coming up at the end of month that may be a good candidate to give the 28-75 a run.

I think the rush of getting some L glass got to me and that's why I started considering a used 24-70L. I see them on eBay for $700-$900 bucks so I started thinking that after selling the 28-75 net cost of it would be $500-$700 which doesn't seem that bad. We'll see though. If I decide to keep the 28-75 I could use the savings towards a 70-200 2.8 IS vice the non-IS version.

EOS5DC wrote in post #16682117
... If I get a minute, I'll do some comparisons. How about Tamron 28-75 against the 35 IS?

Go for it!

I just finished up with it. The Canon 35mm shots came out to 158kb, which prevents me from posting them. I was a bit shocked. I have always liked my 28-75, especially on FF. Let me point out that I am not a pixel-peeper. I shot at about 4 feet, 6D, 1/180, ISO 100. I shot the Tamron at f/2.8 and the 35 IS at f/2 and f/2.8. The Canon is clearly superior, even in the center of the frame, when viewed at 100%. The Canon falls off toward the corners to just a tad worse than the Tamron is in the center. The Tamron is quite soft in the corners. This is all wide-open, remember. Here is the 100% crop of the Tamron. I have to re-do the Canon shots as they were a bit too large.

EDIT: This is the center of the frame from the Tamron. The Canon gets about this soft in the extreme corners.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

The Canon shots. f/2 and f/2.8

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Boy, that really doesn't show up too well on down-sized photos. Sorry.

^^^ Hang on, they are all centre frame?

If that's the case, the Canon @ f2 is miles ahead of the Tamron already....care to post the mush that is the extreme corner from Tamron?

At the end of the day it's just another case of you get what you pay for, can't expect too much from a 3rd party sub-$300 constant f2.8 zoom