Used Canon 28-80/2.8-4.0 L or new Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI on 20D?

Hi,

I've seen an offer for a used lens I hadn't known about until yesterday ... the Canon 28-80/2.8-4.0 L (the predecessor of the 28-70/2.8 L which was the predecessor of the 24-70/2.8 L...)

So I'm now pondering the following ... what would be better as a walk-around lens on a 20D, this used lens or a new Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI?

Normally the suggestion is simple ... if you're ready to plunk down $ 1,100 ... get the Canon 24-70/2.8 L, otherwise go for the Tamron. Now ... assuming that this lens will sell for maybe $ 450 ... which one should I get then?

I've researched the web, of course and found out that the lens was very similar to the 28-70/2.8 with some shortcomings like
- vignetting on the long end (shouldn't be a problem on a digital body)
- 4.0 instead of 2.8 on the long end
- moderate barrel distortion on the wide end
- even heavier than the 28-70/2.8 L
- weird manual zoom mechanism (electronic)
Shortcomings, of course, is a relative term for a Canon L lens...

My main hesitation at the moment (apart from buying a used vs. a new lens) is with the size and weight of this lens as opposed to the Tamron ... but then how would the sharpness compare wide open? Can you get good Bokeh with 80@4.0 ?

Those of you who have an opinion on that (Ron Chappel?) ... what would be your suggestion? What price should be 'just' for that lens in 'used' condition?

Best regards,
Andy

I sold my 28-80 F2.8-4 about two years ago, but I remember it well.

Bokeh at 80mm F4 was mediocre when I did portraits
The electronic manual focus was.... wierd but incredibly accurate. slowing down when using the MF ring seemed to slow the manual focusing even more!
AF was pretty slow though

Don't remember much else though, good lens but heavy. I voted you get the Tamron.

Agree, go with the tamron... I was COMPLETELY AMAZED with the tamron... My first tamron (28-300) was a bust... Well, it is a good walk around lens because it is light but that is about it, it did take some good pictures but it does NOT compare to my 70-200 or 100-400 but it also didn't cost $1600 or $1400 eaither!!!! The 28-75mm is a GREAT lens... My 50mm f1.4 used to be fixed to my camera ALL the time, now the 28-75 is. I love this lens. It makes it easier for the wife to use to. She hates primes even though I love them and wish I could afford more of them ie: 200 f1.8, 400 f2.8....

Thank you all for the polls and answers.

This certainly was educating for me ... guess it'll be the 28-75 XR DI then (unless some other spectacular alternative comes up quite soon

I already knew that the Tamron was a very good lens, but Richards comment was especially helpful.

Best regards,
Andy

Update:

The28-75/2.8 XR DI it was and I am very happy with it.

I use it mostly at f/4.0, as it is really tack sharp (sharp when viewed at 100% crop) there (although it is pretty sharp wide open).

My (unscientific) quick tests at 50 mm showed that I get tack sharp photos with
- the 50/1.8 @ f/2.8,
- the 28-75/2.8 @ f/4.0 and
- the 18-55 @ f/8.

Bokeh at 75/4.0 is very nice, though I normally use my 50/1.8 @ f/2.8 for portraits.

Best regards,
Andy

Hi Andy

Well, well... so this was the story behind the Tamron???
Let me tell you that it was one of the lenses you recommended a few days after I got my first DLSR. I haven't bought it yet (lack of money....) but it is next in my list.

I saw the thread where people were posting pictures... that lens looks like a really good investment.

Leo.

Go with the Tamron. Like other people have said, it's pin-sharp @ f4.0 throughout the focal range. Build quality is more than adequate and it's quite light. It also comes with an excellent hood.

Bad points: Slow-ish and noisy AF. No direct MF.

Do a search for some shots taken with it on this forum.

Here's one from me to start you off.

Gary.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.