Canon 24-70F2.8 or Tamron 28-75F2.8

I have finally made up my mind for 24-70 range lens for walk around with Tokina12-24 supplementing in back pack. However weight & size of Canon scares me.

I will be using combo at outdoor for landscape, environmental portraits & indoor for portraits & group photos.

To raise funds my assumptions are-- (1) If I buy Canon, I sell Canon50,1.4 & Sigma; (2) If I buy Tamron, I sell only sigma

I can't speak on behalf of the 24-70 but have you thought about the 17-55mm. It's about half the weight and arguably better image quality.

But since you don't have a super heavy body, I don't think the weight is going to be too bad, but that is in comparison to shooting a 7D that weighs twice as much as the 500D.

Perhaps the 24-105 could be another option, weighs about .6lbs less than the 24-70.

But weight isn't always a bad thing. I think you'll really appreciate the robustness and the high quality materials on the 24-70. I'm sure once you start shooting and start enjoying it, you'll forget all about the weight.

The Tamron is an awesome lens. You're giving up a bit of the wide end and AF speed, but you're also getting a very light weight and small lens in comparison, not to mention saving a heap of cash.

I was in the same predicament and went with the Tamron. Didn't like it after the first use...sent it in to be calibrated under warranty. Came back the same. I put it away and haven't used it since. I will never buy Tamron again. Another thing that bugs me....it rotates opposite than Canon to zoom.

ootsk wrote in post #11546119
I was in the same predicament and went with the Tamron. Didn't like it after the first use...sent it in to be calibrated under warranty. Came back the same. I put it away and haven't used it since. I will never buy Tamron again. Another thing that bugs me....it rotates opposite than Canon to zoom.

My Tamrons have been more reliable than my Canons. There is a thread right now with someone who has sent a Canon 24-70 back 4 times without success. Not that I think it's right for a company to have such poor QC, but unfortunately they're all as bad as each other for the most part.

I would suggest the Canon 17-55 or the Sigma 17-50 which has had good reviews and both have IS.

I bought a Tamron 28-75 when I had a crop body. It's the second lens I bought when I got a dSLR. Having survived a 40D/5D/5DII/5DII + 7D and a number of other lenses, should say something.

I am very happy with it, obviously. Absolutely no temptation to replace it with the 24-70. I would get a better build and weather proofing. The Tamron build is fine, for me. Complete weather proofing is not something I need. Never using filters, it would not be weather sealed, anyway. Having the Tamron for 3 years, if it ever got drowned in water, I could get another one and still be ahead $$$.

After comparing IQ head-to-head between the Tamron 28-75 and Canon 24-70, I sold the Canon and kept the Tamron. The Canon produced a slight blue cast / reduced contrast. The Canon was sharper at wide open apertures, but stopped down to 5.6 the Tamron was very, very nice. AF on the Canon was better as was the zoom ring rotation orientation. But, for 3x the price, there was NOT 3x the performance. I'm going to suffer along with the Tamron until Canon comes out with the 24-70 II to clean up the optical issues with the 24-70.

I did my testing with a 5D. If you're shooting a crop camera, you should be looking at the wonderful Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS. It is a wonderful lens.

When I had a crop body, I had the 12-24 and 24-70. I did too much lens swapping as a lot of my pics were taken in the range of about 20=35mm. I got the 17-55 and all the silly lens swapping went away.

Get the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

I had the Tamron and was a wonderful lens...just repurchased.

Treaks

The Tammy is a good lens, especially at its price point. But dont let anyone fool you. It is no where remotely in the same league as a canon 24-70. The canon is way ahead of it and thats why the price difference. Tha tammy is really a 28-70 lens. Its pretty much useless after 70mm at f/2.8 and really does not get clean results until you stop it down to f/4. I would stick with your plans to purchase a 24-70 and keep the lens. Dont sell it. It works well on your camera and should you get into it more and decide to go full frame,,you are set.

Uh, no comment

I was in the same predicament as you were several years ago. After reading more reviews than I can remember, I bought the Tamron 28-75. I use it more than any of my lenses other than my macros and have been very pleased with it. Optically, it has performed very well, consistent with the reviews, which say that it is very close to the Canon except in the far corners, which you won't see with your crop sensor camera anyway. It lacks full time manual focusing, which I would like, and it is a bit annoying to have to remember to zoom in the other direction (but really--how long when you start turning the barrel does it take to realize that you have to switch directions?). The BQ is fine, but not up to the Canon L level. People say it focuses more slowly than the canon, which I assume is true because of the mechanism, but I have not had any problems with the speed of AF. So my take at the time was that it was not quite what the Canon is, but it costs 1/3 as much, and I had plenty of other uses for the other 2/3. After several years of use (I think 3, at this point), my opinion is exactly the same as it was. BTW, you should check, but my recollection from using them both at an event a year ago is that the Canon is much heavier.

I have had both lenses. The 24-70 copy I had was sharp at f/2.8, but so was my Tamron. IQ was very similar. The 24-70 is a great kens, I wasn't convinced-from the copies I had-it was worth the nearly $1000 difference over the 28-75. The Tamron did 90% of what the brick will do.

Check the Lens Sample Archives for each. Look at bohdanks' photo archive.

treaks wrote in post #11546380
I had the Tamron and was a wonderful lens...just repurchased.

Treaks

Lively colours. This lens seems to have good close up / macro feature. Was this photo hand held..

n1as wrote in post #11546379
After comparing IQ head-to-head between the Tamron 28-75 and Canon 24-70, I sold the Canon and kept the Tamron. The Canon produced a slight blue cast / reduced contrast. The Canon was sharper at wide open apertures, but stopped down to 5.6 the Tamron was very, very nice. AF on the Canon was better as was the zoom ring rotation orientation. But, for 3x the price, there was NOT 3x the performance. I'm going to suffer along with the Tamron until Canon comes out with the 24-70 II to clean up the optical issues with the 24-70.

I did my testing with a 5D. If you're shooting a crop camera, you should be looking at the wonderful Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS. It is a wonderful lens.

When I had a crop body, I had the 12-24 and 24-70. I did too much lens swapping as a lot of my pics were taken in the range of about 20=35mm. I got the 17-55 and all the silly lens swapping went away.

Get the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

I was originally planning to buy 17-55 lens + 85 or 100mm prime. However I felt that there will be too much FL overlap with Tokina & I will sell it. In fact I did a study & found that I use 40% of time Tokina in 12-15 mm range (at present Tokina is my walk around lens and outdoors I am lazy to switch lens).
I agree that I will also be using 20-35mm FL range a lot. In the end too many contradiction to overcome and final solution will have some compromise.