Tamron 28-75 color versus Canon 24-70

Hey all,

I currently have the Tamron 28-75. It's a great lens; light, sharp, and just works. A few months ago I also got a 70-200F4L. This biggest thing I noticed with the L lens was the colors and contrast. They are just great! The Tamron has rather muted colors in comparison with the L glass, and I was wondering if I was too get a Canon 24-70 (or 28-70 if I can find one for much cheaper) would I notice any difference with colors and contrast?

I photograph sporting events - mountain biking, skiing, and other events that I come across. I routinely go through 500 images after each, and having to not go through and add contrast and mess with colors would be a wonderful thing.

Thanks for the help - it's appreciated!

I personally find the IQ to be very similar between the two lenses. The 24-70 has slightly better color saturation in my images, but it's serious pixel peeping. I'm pretty sure that I just have a fantastic copy of a Tammy.

colors can be adjusted in post process in no time at all. I think sharpness wide open and over all performance is more important then if it doesnt look as saturated.

Thanks for the response. The Tamron is as sharp as I need it, can't really complain. And for me - there is a large enough difference between the 70-200 colors and the Tamron that I would seriously consider switching - whether it can be done in PP or not; it's easier not doing it at all, and it usually looks better if it's done through the lens than through the computer. I'm just not sure if the Canon 24-70 produces the same, or similar, color and contrast as the Canon 70-200.

As I have never owned a 70-2, I cannot really tell you if it produces better color natively than the 24-70. There are many a thread that say that the 70-200 is the best lens optically that Canon has ever produced, so it may just be that the 70-2 produces better images than the 24-70, I just cannot say for sure. My copies of the Tammy and the Canon produce pretty much the same image, with a slight, and I mean slight edge going to the Canon.

TaDa wrote in post #5225924
are many a thread that say that the 70-200 is the best lens optically that Canon has ever produced

Not true. I can list quite a few that are better if you like...starting with the 300 f2.8 IS.

Best is a matter of opinion my friend . Like I stated, I've never had one, so it's not my opinion

05Xrunner wrote in post #5225570
colors can be adjusted in post process in no time at all. I think sharpness wide open and over all performance is more important then if it doesnt look as saturated.

I'll go along with this.

TaDa wrote in post #5225924
There are many a thread that say that the 70-200 is the best lens optically that Canon has ever produced

Zoom maybe. Best from the entire EF line? Definitely not. I've a 70-200 f/2.8L IS and a 24-70 f/2.8L. Is the long zoom better? I dunno. Probably. I never looked that close. I do know the 70-200 doesn't cover the 24-69mm range though.

TaDa wrote in post #5225924
There are many a thread that say that the 70-200 is the best lens optically that Canon has ever produced

That's just completely and utterly false. I could list you ten or fifteen Canon lenses off the top of my head that are better.

cdifoto wrote in post #5226139
Zoom maybe. Best from the entire EF line? Definitely not. I've a 70-200 f/2.8L IS and a 24-70 f/2.8L. Is the long zoom better? I dunno. Probably. I never looked that close. I do know the 70-200 doesn't cover the 24-69mm range though.

Yes, of those ten or fifteen, something like...all of them would be primes .

And to the OP:
Optically, not much difference, certainly nothing that can't be dealt with in PP. The L gives you ring USM, FTM, and better build.