Canon 24-70L vs Tamron 28-105LD

Hello All,

I've been using the Canon 50mm 1.8 on my Digital Rebel for indoor sporting events, and lately I've been shooting at f/2.5 or f/2.8 to get the DOF I need. Since the Canon 24-70L opens up to 2.8, and since I would love to be able to get some of those "tack sharp" images that people talk about, I'm starting to consider the lens (even at $1100). Tamron sells a 28-105mm 2.8 lens for $770 ($640 with mail-in rebate). It sounds nice, but would it give me those "tack sharp" images? Does anyone have any experience with this lens or have anything they can tell me about it. Also, I'm starting to do portraits for people, and the 50mm is nice for some effects, but a zoom really would be nice. I think both the 24-70L and the 28-105 would work well for me, but once again, any experience or input would be helpful. The 24-70L really does seem to be be a good "all around" lens. Although the Tamron would be too, especially if the quality was near that of the Canon.

Thanks for any input, and glad to see that the board is back up and running! (Thanks Pekka!)
-Deva

I'm not sure you'll find anything sharper then a Canon 50mm prime, even the MkII cheapy.

The Canon 24-70L may be close, and nearest from that I guess many on the board love the Tamron 28-75mm Di(<$400). I think Sigma makes a good 24(28)-70mm f2.8 also.

Some also have stated the Canon 85mm prime is a very sharp lens too.

I'd have thought you'd want more like a 70-200 lens for shooting sports - how do you manage with the 50mm lens?

Both the Canon 24-70/2.8 L and the Canon 70-200/2.8 L (NON-IS) are great lenses that should give you very good quality even wide open. For sports, the reach of the 70-200 is normally seen as better suited.

Still, a 1.8 lens stopped down to 2.8 will be sharper than a 2.8 lens wide open.

As far as the Tamron 28-105/2.8 is concerned ... I've never heard about it.
That in itself doesn't say much but I've heard the Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI praised as a great lens on this and other forums about a thousand times. Verdict ... similar optical quality to the Canon 24-70/2.8 L, but without the build quality (and the price, of course). Still, I've also heard that some users had to exchange the first copy they got to get a lens that was tack sharp also wide open.

Best regards,
Andy

I love my 85 f1.8 for indoor sports...love it

I've seen a few posts on a local photography forum about the Tamron 28-105 f/2.8 - it seems to be of lower optical quality than the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, sharpness wise that is.

I can recommend the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, but you won't get "tack"-sharp images with it wide open - it's useable, but not comparable to the L zooms quality. My 70-200 f/2.8L is VERY sharp wide open - the Tamron can manage to match the sharpness of it only at f/4.5 or so.

What is your need for a new lens ? Is it lack of reach of the 50mm ? AF speed and accuracy ?

Thanks for the replies everyone!

Mr. Chad, I have not heard that there is nothing sharper than the 1.8 prime. Are you sure about that? Anyone else on this?

Tim, I've been shooting basketball games and cheer competitions, and with basketball games I'm down on the court and with cheer competitions I manage to get either a front-row seat or I am on the floor near the mat. In fact, at the competition I was at yesterday, I was too close for many of the shots. Extra reach would be nice, but so far I've been finding myself wanting to back out more than I've wanted to zoom in. Also, many times I have to crop the heck out of my shots to fill the frame with my subjects, but it works.

Andythaler, so the 50mm 1.8 stopped down to 2.8 will be sharper than the 24-70L at 2.8? If that's so, I don't think I'll be spending the $1100. I mean, at 2.8 my shots are OK, but they're not "tack sharp". Maybe it's the lighting. I'm really pushing it at ISO 800, so maybe after the noise removal, the shot can only look so "sharp". Hmmm... I need to experiment some more I think.

Olegis, thanks for sharing your personal experience. I definitely would be using the new lens wide open, so that's where I want to compare the quality. My need for a new lens is to get some zoom ability. For instance, I can't move once the performance starts at a cheer competition, and it lasts all of 2 or 3 minutes. Choice of seating is sometimes not very good. For some competitions, I'm finding I'm having to crop more than I'd like, and for others, I'm just too close, so I need the ability to back out. Maybe I would be better off sitting far off in the bleachers with a telephoto lens. Then, relative to my distance, the action is more or less the same distance away. Part of the problem with being so close sometimes is that the mat is fairly "deep", so they can come very close, and then move far away. Then again, not all competitions have straight-on bleechers, so I would be in trouble then. Anyhow, sorry so long, but zoom ability at f/2.8 is the short answer. If you have any alternative ideas, I'd love to hear them. Also, I think the lens might be nice for some portrait work in the 50mm-70mm range. I know, the prime 85mm or 100mm would probably be better, but I'm finding that a little zoom ability can make a job a lot easier. But I am still thinking about the 85mm prime. That could also help in events where I am further from the action. Eek, decisions, decisions... Oh, but if I'm further back, I'll get more DOF, correct? Then I could stop that 85mm down to f/2.5 or even more perhaps.

Thanks again for the replies. So it sounds like at 50mm, the lens I have should be doing pretty good at f/2.8. It also sounds like the Canon 24-70L at 2.8 is going to perform better than the Tamron 28-75 at 2.8. Any other input/ideas?

Thanks again!
-Deva

Sounds like you need yourself the Tamron 28-75 to me

Well, you're right. The Canon 24-70 f/2.8L will be better than the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 wide open, but the cost difference will be enormous - the Canon costs about three times the Tamron ! Will the optical quality be three times better ? I doubt that. Will the extra optical quality + the exeptional build quality + instant, accurate and quiet AF + higher resell value + personal ego satisfaction from using one of the best zooms on earth, worth the difference ? Only you can decide

I can provide you a sample shot from my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 at 75mm, f/2.8, ISO 800 (10D body), uncropped, 100% full resolution, unedited (very large image) :

http://www.pbase.com …s/image/3611420​6/original

If you want more full size samples I can throw a few up on my server too. Browse my site and choose which ones you want if you do... if you don't... that's even easier

The 50/1.8's (either version) are NOT the sharpest lenses around.They are very sharp but try lenses such as 85/1.8 ,200/1.8,100 macro or the stagering 300/2.8 (+ quite a few others) and you'll understand

The canon 24-70 L and tamron 28-105/2.8 are very different in image quality

The canon is about as good as it is possible to get in such a lens.It's natural 'competitor' is the much admired tamron 28-75 XR.It's not as sharp but comes close and is MUCH cheaper

The 28-105/2.8 is in a class of it's own.You'd think everyone would be talking about it if it was any good but unfortunately it has no special reputation.Indeed it is said to be quite soft wide open...and overpriced in any case!

Just as Ron said ... one of the other notable lenses he did not mention is the Canon 135/2.0 L.

However, the point is that it is a lot easier to construct a sharp prime lens than a zoom lens, because a zoom lens has more lens elements and needs to be adjusted so it is not just sharp at a single focal length, but over the whole zoom range. You'll have to spend a lot of money to get the sharpness of the 1.8/50 in a zoom range ... with the Tamron being the 'budget' version of going in that direction.

Another very good lens, of course, is the Canon 1.4/50. It is better built than the 1.8/50 and gives better bokeh. Take a look at this comparison: http://www.photo.net/e​quipment/canon/ef50/
But ... as the reviewer sums it up ... it is better, but not 5 times better (though it is 5 times more expensive). It should focus better in low light, though.

Something else ... if your pictures do not look 'tack sharp' to you with the Canon 1.8/50, then maybe you should check
- post-processing (especially sharpening)
- focus technique?
- ISO.

Best regards,
Andy

OT: Ron, a lot of people have received wrong signature lines in the forum re-vamp. But you even changed your name to david

Wow, Olegis, that's a great image at ISO 800! Unprocessed, it's quite sharp. I don't think I can quite give it the "tack-sharp" seal of approval, but it's definitely very close and it is very sharp. After a little PS sharpening, that does look awesome! Is there anyone out there with the Canon 24-70L that would like to comment on that quality at ISO 800?

OK, after seeing Olegis' image at ISO 800, I did a little playing around, and I think I've found the crux of the issue. In those dark indoor conditions, even at ISO 800, I'm still underexposed by about 2 full stops (at this last event I shot at f/2.8 1/320 sec ISO 800). That's making the image look grainier, and also, unlike the cat, which is a single giant object that fills the frame, I'm shooting a group of people, so the grain on any particular subject's face is going to be more noticable because the subject is so small in the frame. Is this correct reasoning? Anyhow, I just took some shots in my home at f/2.8 ISO 800, but properly exposed, and the image looked much closer to what Olegis posted. So, it looks like if I had the Tamron lens, I would get similar results to what I get now, except that I would have that cool zoom capability. Thanks again Olegis for the sample. BTW, do you have any samples at ISO 800 that are about 2 stops underexposed? If so, are they fairly grainy?

Tim, thanks for the offer, but I think I've seen enough. I'll save you the trouble, and I do appreciate the offer.

I've considered selling the 1.8 and buying a 1.4, but that's a lot lower on my list right now. For now, the money is going to be better spent (for me) elsewhere. But it is a definite thought. I am noticing that I'm getting a few shots off focus. Now most of those are probably me, but quicker (and more accurate) focusing would be nice. At the time, I just couldn't resist the $80 price tag of the 1.8. My focusing technique is to use AF in One Shot mode using the center dot as my focus point. I try to focus my subject, then keep it held, and shoot when the moment presents itself. I shoot in continuous mode so that I can get a jump sequence or whatever and choose the best shot. Everything's happing so fast, I just have to shoot a lot and hope for the best! Most shots are in focus, though, especially since I'm now up to f/2.8. I was using f/1.8 and that was brutal because the DOF was so narrow.

Ron, you are right, if the 28-105/2.8 was any good, not only would people be talking about it, they'd probably own it! Yeah, it really did look almost too good to be true.

As for prime lenses, the input from this forum turned me onto the 50/1.8 and I have been so happy with it! One of the lenses I want to get after this 24-70 or 28-75 (the 28-105 is now out) is the Canon 100mm macro lens (macro shots are cool). This lens opens up to f/2.8, so I could use this lens at events as well. I know that the Canon 100 f/2.0 would probably be better in this situation, and it would be better for portraits as well, but it would be nice to get multi-use function out of the lens. Anyhow, it's all something for me to keep in mind.

Thanks for all of your input. I think I'm leaning (heavily) towards the Tamron 28-75XR Di at this point. $340 vs $1100 is a huge difference. At that price, I probably wouldn't even be upset if I ended up buying the 24-70L a few years down the line. Then again, maybe I would. But, that would give me the $470 I would need for the Canon 100/2.8 macro. Or $375 for the 100/2.0. Or $325 for the 85/1.8. What if money grew on trees?

Thanks again for the help. I think I need to just let this all settle in the back of my brain for a little while.

OT: BTW, I have email notification set, but it's not working. Is it working for anyone else? Thanks.

-Deva

It's working for me. Go turn automatic subscribe off in your profile then on again. I'm not saying that'll defintitely fix it, but it might Check your email address too, of course.

dphoto wrote:
Wow, Olegis, that's a great image at ISO 800! Unprocessed, it's quite sharp. I don't think I can quite give it the "tack-sharp" seal of approval, but it's definitely very close and it is very sharp. After a little PS sharpening, that does look awesome! Is there anyone out there with the Canon 24-70L that would like to comment on that quality at ISO 800?

OK, after seeing Olegis' image at ISO 800, I did a little playing around, and I think I've found the crux of the issue. In those dark indoor conditions, even at ISO 800, I'm still underexposed by about 2 full stops (at this last event I shot at f/2.8 1/320 sec ISO 800). That's making the image look grainier, and also, unlike the cat, which is a single giant object that fills the frame, I'm shooting a group of people, so the grain on any particular subject's face is going to be more noticable because the subject is so small in the frame. Is this correct reasoning? Anyhow, I just took some shots in my home at f/2.8 ISO 800, but properly exposed, and the image looked much closer to what Olegis posted. So, it looks like if I had the Tamron lens, I would get similar results to what I get now, except that I would have that cool zoom capability. Thanks again Olegis for the sample. BTW, do you have any samples at ISO 800 that are about 2 stops underexposed? If so, are they fairly grainy?

I learned this trick from Drisley - if you expose the images right (or slightly, just slightly over-expose it, without blowing the highlights off), then the noise will much less visible, even at high ISO levels like 800 or even 1600. Of course this is not the case in poorly lit gyms ans stadiums, where the lighting contitions are far from being optimal for you to take properly exposed shot - sometimes you have to underexpose in order to get the shot at decent shutter speed (it's better than properly exposed, but blurred shot due to low shutter speeds). In these cases the noise will be more visible, but you can deal with it by using a noise-removal software, like Noise-Ninja. I have a few galleries that were shot at ISO1600 and then the pictures got noise-removal treatment by Noise-Ninja - you can see the results and judge for yourself.

To answer your question - in general, underexposing two stops will yield images much more noisier that those properly exposed. But remember this - modern DSLRs are much better in producing high quality results at high ISO settings than high sensitivity film. I mean that a 10D body can get you better looking picture with actually less grain (or noise) at ISO 800, than 35mm film with the same sensitivity - so don't be afraid of high ISOs or a little bit of grain here and there.

I'm not sure the 100mm f/2 will be better that 100mm f/2.8 Macro - the latter is VERY sharp, in fact it's almost an L lens from the optical point of view. You can shoot with is wide open and still get sharp results, while the 100mm f/2 might need to be stopped down in order to get similar results - which cancels its larger aperture advantage.