jumping ship to third party glass.... ??

So, awhile back I bought myself the 28-105 3.5-4.5 and it's been very good to me and have a lot of nice results from it.. But, I'm currently thinking of maybe switching it out for a Tamron 28-75 f2.8... Now, normally I've had the smallest attitude about buying anything not Canon but that dang lens has been staring at me on this forum for months.. I've tried it out in the store half a dozen times and it's just soo pretty... I have a job coming up that will completely justify the expense but, I'm wondering what kind of differences, and thoughts folks have between the two.. I was originally up for the Canon because of the extra bit of reach.. But since experiencing the constant apperture of my 70-200 f4.0 L I'm thinking that the constant 2.8 is going to have the image quality of the primes that you run into.. and I think i'll take fast, sharp and pretty over a bit of reach.. Lets hear any advice or opinions.. please, pretty please....

sari

certainly seems like a smart move to me.

It's a good lens, but it is reasonably rpiced, so do you really have to dump thye 28-105? they overlap a bit but does that matter?

I wouldn't worry about a 3rd party lens that has the reputation this one does.

Well this seems ok. I wanted to purchase the Canon 24-70L, but I did not have enough money for it. Also, I had a priority to put my money into the 70-200L IS. So I decided to get the Sigma 24-70EX (cause I wanted that extra 4mm). This is optically a great lens. I love it. But the Canon is unique in that when you zoom to wide the front lens moved out. This is perfect for the Hood. Although the Sigma does the same thing it does not have a hood as the canon. Additionally, the focus motor is fast and silent on the Canon and with the canon you can manual focus while AF is active. This can be done with the Sigma as well, but the sigma motor is a bear, making it more difficult to turn. In the end if money is available I will move up to the Canon. my 2 cents.

davidfig wrote in post #2018852
Well this seems ok. I wanted to purchase the Canon 24-70L, but I did not have enough money for it. Also, I had a priority to put my money into the 70-200L IS. So I decided to get the Sigma 24-70EX (cause I wanted that extra 4mm). This is optically a great lens. I love it. But the Canon is unique in that when you zoom to wide the front lens moved out. This is perfect for the Hood. Although the Sigma does the same thing it does not have a hood as the canon. Additionally, the focus motor is fast and silent on the Canon and with the canon you can manual focus while AF is active. This can be done with the Sigma as well, but the sigma motor is a bear, making it more difficult to turn. In the end if money is available I will move up to the Canon. my 2 cents.

umm... i'm talking about the tamron 28-75 f2.8.. not the sigma..

a very good bang for the buck with the Tamron 28-75mm.
I had one before acquiring the 24-70mm and while I don't regret the move, I have to acknowledge that for dollar for dollar, the Tammy is the more utilitarian choice.

Cheers

saravrose wrote in post #2018797
So, awhile back I bought myself the 28-105 3.5-4.5 and it's been very good to me and have a lot of nice results from it.. But, I'm currently thinking of maybe switching it out for a Tamron 28-75 f2.8... Now, normally I've had the smallest attitude about buying anything not Canon but that dang lens has been staring at me on this forum for months.. I've tried it out in the store half a dozen times and it's just soo pretty... I have a job coming up that will completely justify the expense but, I'm wondering what kind of differences, and thoughts folks have between the two.. I was originally up for the Canon because of the extra bit of reach.. But since experiencing the constant apperture of my 70-200 f4.0 L I'm thinking that the constant 2.8 is going to have the image quality of the primes that you run into.. and I think i'll take fast, sharp and pretty over a bit of reach.. Lets hear any advice or opinions.. please, pretty please....

sari

that's what i did -- 28-135 to tamron 28-75. the tamron is the lens that first exposed me to good glass....but if you already have the 70-200f4 you already know about that .

ed rader

You will enjoy for sure! constant aperture is NICE!

Do you need the extra speed the tamron offers?
If so do it!
If not, the canon is a pretty nice piece if glass for the price, and you could spend your money elsewhere

The wide end isn't wide enough for day to day IMHO. You are better getting the new 18-55mm Tamron 2.8, which is pretty much ideal walkaround range and speed. The gap from 55mm to the 70mm on your L is irrelevant.

I agree about getting the 17-50 f/2.8 Tamron (or waiting for the Tokina 16-50 f/2.8)....optically excellent and a much better range on a crop camera.

My Tamron 28-75 was the first REAL lens I bought. I've had it for over a year now and it never stops amazing me with the quality of the images. Here's a sample pic. However, the prints I've made from this lens are just plain awesome.

http://www.flickr.com …m.gne?id=224018​055&size=l

Absolutely beautiful, Jesus. Really shows what that lens is capable of.

Jesus,

Beautiful photo...well done.

To the OP...I do not have any experience with the 3rd party lens you are considering, but I just bought my first non-Canon lens and I am delighted with the purchase...I got the Sigma 30MM f/1.4 and the positive experience has taught me that you don't have to buy Canon to get good glass I will definately consider 3rd party lenses in all future purchases.

Jman13 wrote in post #2019196
I agree about getting the 17-50 f/2.8 Tamron (or waiting for the Tokina 16-50 f/2.8)....optically excellent and a much better range on a crop camera.

how do we know that the tokina is "optically excellent"? i hear fstopjoseph saying the same thing .

ed rader