24-70 L & 28-75 T

Well I recently just ordered the L after owning the T. The T has served me WELL, but I do want a little bit more, like faster focus, and more accurate focus (especially in low light). The build is a + for sure. But I received the L about 3 days ago, and the sharpness isn't really there. I feel like I'm losing in that area. I understand pros and cons, but I was hoping for the price difference, it would'nt be like this at all.

I attached some samples.

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i23.photobucket​.com …rzymala/Temp/IM​G_2956.jpg HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i23.photobucket​.com …rzymala/Temp/IM​G_2957.jpg HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

i have the 24-70 l and I love the thing. However, I'll tell you that I had similar problems at first. I'm not sure why but my first couple days the lens seemed to be softer and I tried the focus tests and on the tripod everything looked great. The 45 degree test at minimum focus distances showed slight front/back focus on different focal lengths but this was only in the most extreme conditions I could produce.

I don't know if my hands got steadier after working with it. Maybe, I just tried harder to concentrate on good form. Now it seems to work great! The color is AMAZING! I'm so glad I got this and not the 24-105.

Keep working with it and post some focus test shots.

Good luck,

oz

Sorry to hear that Andy. Could it be the extra weight of the L, that you're not used to, a source of the problem. And as Oz mentioned maybe you will get steadier as time progresses.

Incidentely, what were your settings for the shots? Post a few more as well to get a better idea.

ABOVE: 1/125 & 1/100

I thought maybe the weight as well, but at fast shutter speeds, seems I still get softer images than the Tammy.

I just really hope Im not being overly critical. I did some more test on a tripod, and I got favorable results, but it seems real life use, I have issues. This could be due to focal length, or my own mis-use. Here is another crop comparing the two (converted from raw).

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i23.photobucket​.com …rzymala/Temp/IM​G_1794.jpg HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

Okay a few more from the tripod, and flash (flash 1/2 power bounced from ceiling.) These are my more "controlled" shots. These almost seem exact, slight differences...Maybe I'm being over critical, maybe I'm doing something wrong during my real shoots?

L

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i23.photobucket​.com …386/atgrzymala/​Temp/L.jpg HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i23.photobucket​.com …atgrzymala/Temp​/Tammy.jpg HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

In the photos of the little girls, what was your focus point? Did you focus/recompose? In the second photo, the rhs girl's dungaree and buckle seems more in focus.

In the Tequila bottle shot, it looks like you used the centre AF (no focus/recompose) and cropped at the focal point, hence the sharper photos.

I believe I used center for the people shots. I don't believe I recomposed. BUT I think also may have been in servo which could have tossed it off...Maybe I jumping to conclusions?

And you right about the Tequila shots (no pun intended ). Center focus, no recomposing. Also used mirror lock up, and self timer.

BTW, Love the signature!!!

Yes, AI servo is never going to be as accurate as one shot. The more controlled shots show that it's unlikey that there is a problem with the lens.

Try the people shots with One Shot (without recomposing) using the focal point closest to the eyes - try it wide open and other apertures and see if you get the same problem.

got another event today, so will do.

This lens is very nice at F4 and above. So I'm not too concerned in that area, but hopefully later I will post some more...

Pretty nice testament to the sharpness of the Tamron.

I rented the 24-70L and other than a slight contrast boost and better colors, it wasn't worth the weight and expense for my shooting style.

It looks good at 70mm... I'm wondering why the 24mm looks soft. Come to think of it, the couple times that I've been bummed out recently by a soft shot has been at the wide end... I microadjusted up and down, but 0 seems to be all around the best that I get so now I leave it at that.

Eiter way I'm interested to see your outcome, post new shots if you can.

That the two of these lens are about equally sharp in the center is not surprising. The "L" should have a distinct advantage in the corners on a full-frame camera. IMHO, on your 1.6x 30D, you're paying a lot more and carrying more weight than you'll gain in sharpness. What you do get is better build, better focusing system, slightly better quality bokeh, perhaps more Canon L-like color rendering and slightly better contrast.

The way I see it, the 24-70 should be due for a "refresh" by Canon soon. Meanwhile, the 28-75 is probably one of the best Tamron lenses ever, for not a lot of money. It's not unlike the 85 1.8 versus the 1.2L. I can understand your disappointment.

This thread is really helpful for me.

I'm planning on picking up the 28-75 tammy, to replace my 18-55 IS, as my default walk around.

Knowing that I'll be paying a fraction of the cost, and losing very little on sharpness/image quality from an L is very comforting.

For the price i'm paying i can deal with the autofocus/build quality issues. It's the finished product i'm worried about.

Well okay. Today, shot another event, and made sure I was on ONE SHOT. Pictures were MUCH BETTER! I'm going to be keeping it for sure now.

For those of you who got the T, or getting it. The Tammy ROCKS. It is an amazing lens!!! As I said, the ONLY reason I changed over is for the MUCH better focusing. This is not to say the Tammy has bad focusing, but it's not fast, and can hunt in low light. IT really depends on what you shoot, and how often you shoot.

You will NOT be unhappy with the Tammy by any means. Also the build quality is not BAD. It's just not L. So you will be good to go!