Canon replacement for my Tamron SP 28-75mm f/2.8

Replacement for my Tamron SP 28-75mm f/2.8

Hello guys,

I’m looking for a Canon replacement for my Tamron SP 28-75. Which Canon lens would be like my Tamron but better…?

I’m looking forward to change my Tamron…

Thanks

Shot in the dark here - the Canon 24-70L 2.8?

How do you mean "better"?

If you have 3x the money, the 24-70 2.8L... I've had that and the Tamron.

Or something cheaper.. maybe the 17-85 IS.. but not very fast.

I know the word better is not a good way of description... I mean, If you would have the Tamron SP 28-75mm and you want to jump up a little on a lens that is almost the same but better quality, sharpness, zoom... a better lens for a walk around lens...

I just find my Tamron a little rough when zooming back and forward... and sometimes is not that fast... looking and option in Canon Lenses...

that would be the 24-70L. i've owned both and the canon is "better".

-- 24mm MUCH more useful than 28mm

-- better color and contrast

-- better built albeit MUCH heavier

-- ring USM focusses faster and more accurately

i'd say the tamron is equally as sharp but at f2.8 my canon is better.

ed rader

You're not going to find many lenses to fit the the 'same but better..., sharpness, zoom' You can find some better build quality if you go to the Canon L. The Canon 17-55 caught my eye as a high optical quality alternative to my Tamron 28-75 -- until the recent threads about dust accumulation inside the Canon EFS lenses (17-85, 17-55). Have to let this one ride out a bit and see whether it is a minority of users who have this problem, or not. I sold my 17-85 but had not used it much, so I didn't expose it to the dust collection opportunity.

It looks like the Canon 24-70L is the option for me...

its quite a jump in price too. theres also the 24-105 f/4 IS L, you gain IS but lose 2.8

Why does EVERYONE keep saying 24mm is SOOO much more useful then 28mm..come on now..thats like leaning your body 6in back to make up the difference. same with 70-75mm thats like leaning forward just a tiny bit. That is a stupid thing to base it on

You did not state what usage you would put the lens through...if you are merely a snapshooter, think twice about DOUBLING the weight of the lens you carry around! (If you get paid to carry the lens around, that's a different matter.)

If you need 2.8 you will have to take a chance on the 24-70mm. Personally, I would always get the 24-105mm IS L as a walkaround before the 2.8. F5.6-8 is fine for walkaround most of the time. Use a fast prime indoors/dark. 2.8 barely cuts it anyway.

Sometimes the silly millimeters do matter. On my FF film SLR I was immediately dissatisfied with 28mm coverage, and I became instantly satisfied with moving to 24mm. Sometimes you don't have a little more distance to back up!

I replaced my Tamron 28-75 with the Canon 24-105. No regrets.

Absolutely!
the reason most people prefer a zoom that starts at a wider angle is because most people prefer them that way! On a crop camera 28mm is too long for my tastes, and most othe rpeople saeem to feel the same way.
On a full frame, it would be just acceptable, but I'd always prefer to start at 24mm.
On a crop camera i want to start at 17 or 18mm. suits me better, and I like my zoom lenses to cover a range that minimises the lens changing.