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

You may want to also look for a used version of the Canon 28-70mm f/2.8L. This was the lens available prior to the release of the 24-70L.

You loose, weather sealing, 4mm on the wide end. Sharpness is also a tad better from 28-50mm on the newer copy, but not much. The two lenses are very close in IQ to each other.

My buddy has owned a 28-70mmL since new in 98. Darn nice lens, well worth the savings IMO if you can find a good used copy. It gives up very little to the 24-70 for my opinion. He wouldn't sell me his so I had purchased the 24-70L

http://www.the-digital-picture.com ….8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Also keep in mind the MSRP of the 28-70L when sold new in '99 was about ~$900. vs. the 24-70L current ~$1200 street price. Bidding for this older version can sometimes get out of hand on ebay.

if you don't know i can't explain it to you .

ed rader

MrChad wrote:
You may want to also look for a used version of the Canon 28-70mm f/2.8L. This was the lens available prior to the release of the 24-70L.

You loose, weather sealing, 4mm on the wide end. Sharpness is also a tad better from 28-50mm on the newer copy, but not much. The two lenses are very close in IQ to each other.

My buddy has owned a 28-70mmL since new in 98. Darn nice lens, well worth the savings IMO if you can find a good used copy. It gives up very little to the 24-70 for my opinion. He wouldn't sell me his so I had purchased the 24-70L

http://www.the-digital-picture.com ….8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Also keep in mind the MSRP of the 28-70L when sold new in '99 was about ~$900. vs. the 24-70L current ~$1200 street price. Bidding for this older version can sometimes get out of hand on ebay.

sounds like a sideways move to me and the OP is clearly wanting to upgrade .

ed rader

Agreed! IMHO 4mm on the wide end makes a huge difference, as opposed to 5mm on the tele end, which I could care less about. The way I think of it is if you have that 28mm, there's nothing you can do to get that extra 4mm, especially when you're limited on space and even worse when you've already taken the shot(you cant magically make that 4mm appear). As far as the 70 vs 75mm tele end, you can always do a 0.93(93%) crop on the 70mm shot and voila, you get your 75mm FOV! LOL (granted the resolution isnt the same). This is why I went with my Sigma 10-20vs Tokina's 12-24, which I kept debating, and that 2mm wide open made all the difference!(although the constant f4 would have been nice)


Oh and my vote would go for the 24-105 unless you absolutely need that f2.8.

Two years ago when I replaced my stolen Canon gear I had the chance to compare the Canon 28-70L, 24-70L and Tamron 28-75. I had all three lenses in my hands and shot the same scenes within minutes of each other. I took three shots, one at each extreme and one at 50mm at different apperatures (f/2.8,4,8 & 11). I evaluated the lenses only for resolution, color and contrast. Both the Canon 28-70L and Tamron beat the 24-70L. It was very difficult to see any significant difference between the Tamron and Canon 28-70L. In some cases the Tamron bested the Canon. The only difference I could notice is the Tamron was a little warmer than the Canon. I am not a pro so build quality and focusing speed are not a consideration to me. As far as build quality goes you can almost buy three Tamrons to one Canon. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Canon L basher. I have the 70-200 IS L and 400 5.6 L lenses and wouldn't trade them for anything. By the way I also have the Tamron 17-35 and 180 f3/5 macro lenses which I am very satisfied with. The Canon 50mm f/1.4 finishes off my lens collection of three Canon's and three Tamrons. So I guess it is a draw!

another vote for the 24-105L A friend of mine owns that lens and it rocks, and with what a long zoom range...

I never had a zoom with aperture larger than f4, had the 85 1.8 and 50 1.4, but never a zoom until I jumped (and I mean jumped) to the 24-70L after just buying the 20D. The 24mm end is a must for 1.6x crop when shooting events. That extra means a lot and why I think the lens is so expensive. But if you think the 24-70 is great on a cropped dslr, you should see the results on a FF film camera. It's fantastic on my EOS 3. I can't wait until I get the 5D this winter!

I just got the Canon 24-105L to replace my 28-75 Tamron and am very happy. One thing I have noticed though that I don’t understand is that it seems way easier to get blur on the Canon. I have to do some testing but at the same focal lengths, distance to subject, and apertures there seems to be a lot more background blur. This is a good thing but I need to better control it now as opposed top the Tamron. Any thoughts on this from folks here who have both? Back to the main point, you will not be disappointed in the 24-105L. My friend has the 24-70 and it is great also but to heavy for a walk around lens.

background blur is purely a function of focal length and f/stop and distance to subject. there should be no difference in DOF between the lenses assuming identical focal length and f/stop and distance with both lenses!

ed rader wrote:
if you don't know i can't explain it to you .

ed rader

Sounds like what my ex used to say...

That’s what I thought but since the Tamron employs a different design I thought there might be some other factors involved. Somehow they can make a 2.8 lens in a radically shorter, smaller, and lighter package so I thought something in that might make a difference.

although the quality of bokeh is influenced by the number of aperture blades (I think more blades = smoother bokeh). potentially you're able to focus at closer distance with the 24-105 and that is having the impact...

The first part is true but the second is not. The minimum focus distance on the 24-105 is 17.7 inches vs 13 for the Tamron.