Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) is better than the Canon L

Today,I've heard that this lens is better than Canon L equivalent . That cant be....can it ?

Whats an ideal price for a new lens like this ?

No.

The IQ of the Tammy is supposed to be on par with the L (which I notice you already have) but it lacks weather sealing, USM, FTM...a massive hood and a red stripe!

The cost new, when I bought it early this year, was about the £300 mark...but I would assume that the lens would be probably be cheaper to buy anywhere outside the UK!

What pridash said.

I wouldn't call it better, but for the price it's a fantastic alternative. I bought mine used at $225, I'm not going to sell it any time soon.

Eiro wrote in post #9213779
Today,I've heard that this lens is better than Canon L equivalent . That cant be....can it ?

better than an "L" ?
sites like www.photozone.de rate the Tamron 28-75 on the image quality scale at 2.5 while the lowly 18-55IS kit lens is at a whopping 3.5 image quality stars! the lowly kit lens is now "L" image quality !?????
Of course the comparisons have a problem in that lens like the Tamron 28-75 are lumped with full frame and not directly compared to lens meant for smaller sensors.

Not that I care about the star rating... it is made up of a number of factors... you are comparing which 28-75 review.... the Nikon crop or the Canon FF ? And you are comparing to what, the 18-55 on a Canon crop ?

The Tamron on a Nikon crop gets 4 stars for optics, whereas the Canon 24-70 on a Canon crop gets 3.5

Waiting for PZ to test the 24-70 on a FF.

Well, the Tamron is much much much better than the 24-70L, in price...oh and also the 75mm is longer than 70mm, I guess that is better as well.

The 24-70 is certainly better built, at the expense of significant more weight and size, and has a better focusing system. The rest is open to debate.

Canon's 24-70 f/2.8L has one feature that is unmatched by any other zoom lens except its predecessor - the Canon 28-70. The unique feature is the combination of the deep lens hood and the fact that the lens extends when zooming toward the shorter focal lengths and retracts when zooming toward the longer focal lengths. This extend/retract motion of the lens is opposite of every other zoom lens I have seen that changes length when zooming.

The benefit is that the front element of the lens is near the opening of the hood at 24mm and well back into the hood at 70mm. In other words, the lens hood's ability to block stray light is optimized at all focal lengths.

All other zoom lenses with moving front elements have lens hoods optimized for the shortest focal length and they have minimal ability to block stray light for the longest focal length.

In addition, many zoom lenses have their lens hoods fastened to the moving portion of the lens. This sort of hood mounting provides very little impact protection for the lens, as all of the force applied to the hood in an impact situation is driven right back into the internal mechanism of the lens.

The hood for the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L lens is fastened to the non-moving exterior shell of the lens. Thus, any impact to the hood does not transfer energy to the inner workings of the lens. This is a significant advantage for a lens that is expected to take hard use over the years.

psinkant wrote in post #9214885
Well, the Tamron is much much much better than the 24-70L, in price...oh and also the 75mm is longer than 70mm, I guess that is better as well.

But the L starts at 24mm

I had the Tamron when I shot Pentax, and it was an excellent lens. I now have the 24-70L. The AF and build quality of the L is much much better. IQ they're close enough which makes the Tamron a tremendous bargain.

Haha All, don't get me wrong. I didn't mean to imply that Tamron 28-75mm is better overall. I was just saying that the 2 aspects that are better on Tamron are the price and 75mm.

It's better than the L if you're only comparing the image quality per dollar spent ratio. The 24-70L has better build, better and faster AF, and from what I understand, is more consistently sharp across the entire image than the Tammy, which can be soft in the corners at wide apertures. IIRC, the Tammy can also vignette more on FF bodies.

That said, you'll be hard-pressed to find another lens in this focal range that produces images as comparable to the 24-70L. We've had a Tammy 28-75 as the primary lens for The Wife's 50D for six months now, and she loves it. It's a surprisingly light lens, and really maximizes the 50D's pixel density (the difference in IQ with lesser lenses is immediately obvious). The only real criticism is that the AF hunts in low light, but in those situations she uses the 580EX II for AF assist, and the Tammy locks on focus flawlessly. It's a very good lens, especially when you consider the price point.

jblaschke wrote in post #9215796
It's better than the L if you're only comparing the image quality per dollar spent ratio. The 24-70L has better build, better and faster AF, and from what I understand, is more consistently sharp across the entire image than the Tammy, which can be soft in the corners at wide apertures. IIRC, the Tammy can also vignette more on FF bodies.

That said, you'll be hard-pressed to find another lens in this focal range that produces images as comparable to the 24-70L. We've had a Tammy 28-75 as the primary lens for The Wife's 50D for six months now, and she loves it. It's a surprisingly light lens, and really maximizes the 50D's pixel density (the difference in IQ with lesser lenses is immediately obvious). The only real criticism is that the AF hunts in low light, but in those situations she uses the 580EX II for AF assist, and the Tammy locks on focus flawlessly. It's a very good lens, especially when you consider the price point.

So are you saying the 28-75 performs better on a crop versus FF ?

Dont know how accurate the SlrGear blur index results are but the 28-75mm looks very good at f4-5.6 the entire FL range:

http://www.slrgear.com …uct.php/product​/49/cat/23

Regards,

watt100 wrote in post #9214770
better than an "L" ?
sites like www.photozone.de rate the Tamron 28-75 on the image quality scale at 2.5 while the lowly 18-55IS kit lens is at a whopping 3.5 image quality

Something about this seems strange. Having owned both the 18-55 and the Tammy (as I'm sure many of us here have,) in my experience, the two lenses aren't even in the same ballpark in terms of image quality. On my 20D the difference was night and day. 18-55 has distortion and color aberration at levels well beyond the tammy. Cant say how the Tammy compares to the L, but IMHO its blows away the 18-55 to the point that it seems silly to even compare them. (not to mention that the range of focal lengths are rather different, also making the comparison a bit strange...)