Another 'which lens thread"....

[cmason]

Yeah I know, do a search...I have, but I still need some support from you guys...

I am looking for a replacement lens for my old, tired and really crappy 35-80 Canon lens. I have a 10-20, and a 70-200 that are fine, so something in the middle is what I am seeking. I would prefer something on the bright side, like a fixed 2.8.

Here is the deal: I have $ burning a hole in my pocket...no fixed amount, but it does need to pass "spousal approval limit". Testing for this limit so far has revealed that a $1000 lens might also need to cook, clean and perhaps perform as a sex toy in order for it to pass. In other words, I might be able to swing it, but it will cost me in filling the 'honey-do' jar.

So, I am considering the following:

Canon 24-70 f2.8 L $1,150
Tamron 28-70 f2.8 $379
Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX $399
Sigma 24-60 f2.8 EX $429


I already have a Sigma EX 10-20mm, and I am very happy with it. Not sure about Tamron, and as for the Canon, well of course I would like it, but not sure my wife would. I am also a bit concerned about the size of it on my XT.

Any experience in comparing these lenses? Anyone know the differences in the Sigma models, aside from filter size? Is the Tamron as well built as the Sigma EX, and a reliable lens?

Thanks for your help....

[rosselliot]

well, as you probably already know from the search function, I started "sea of lenses is an understandment!" thread...got quite a few responses. and here are some tips that I learned form that infamous thread...:huh lol

first of all, reviews are a must - gotta see what the pros think about it. seen fredmiranda.com? click here (http://www.fredmiranda.com)
also, there's the PhotoZone Reviews (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html)
also there's the pbase website, which I know is like taking about hell around here (?! :dunno)....only cause smugmug is so freakin' awesome, right?! :wink
on PBASE there is a camera database, where you can find your lens and see pictures taken by them - here's a link - pbase camera database (http://www.pbase.com/cameras) - there you should just look for the brand of your lens and see what pops up, sometimes there are thousands, sometimes there are....none. so check it out. of course, keep in mind that these are subject to USER ERROR, which is....HIGHLY likely. so keep that in mind, but there are those few good photographers on there (hopefully) that will have nice photographs. so that's another idea.

also, if you're into canon, I'm sure you've seen the reviews at the-digital-picture (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Default.aspx) those are great reviews, and that's where I made my decisions. he furrently only has canon reiews but is slowly oging into the third party market.
okay, um...I think that maybe all I have.
but you have to keep in mind, it's not necessarily the company, because there are companies out there that make WONDERFUL products...and pieces of crap at the same time. so one tokina lens might be the best lens ever made, but they also have some "not-so-great" lenses, too. same with tamron and sigma and all of that. so funfun.
if I learned anything, aside from the 50mm f/1.8 (plastic fantastic), money buys quality. also keep in mind that usually - if it sounds too good to be true...it probably is.


okay - that's all.

hope it helps you make this hard decision!!!! :D

- RE

oh wait - you could also try epinions.com (http://www.dgrin.com/www.epinions.com) they have customer reviews on that site, but they're limited...fred miranda is your best bet for customer reviews. okay - I'm really gone this time! :thumb

[cmason]

Thanks Ross, as I said, I have reviewed many, many reviews, including "Lightrules" on PBase, and Bryan Carnathan "The Digital Picture", both excellent. I guess I am just looking for comments from those who may have gone thru this themselves, their experience and findings.

[SpeshulEd]

I have the Sigma 28-70 2.8 EX DG and I'd say its a really nice lens. I use it primarily for concert type shooting and for me it does a fantastic job. I was tempted to upgrade to the canon 24-70L awhile back, but I find the Sigma to be quite sharp, even at f/2.8. For the price, I don't think you can beat it.

[Manfr3d]

Canon 24-70 f2.8 L $1,150
Tamron 28-70 f2.8 $379
Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX $399
Sigma 24-60 f2.8 EX $429


The Tamron ins an absolute steal as someone on this forum noted before.
(btw it goes from 28 to 75mm, its also able to focus very close 1:4)

[wxwax]

At the risk of starting a hijack... I keep hearing people rave about the Canon 24-105mm L IS (http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/24-105/).

I know it doesn't meet your price spec or your speed spec, but since it's in your focal length hole, and since those who do own it seem to love it, including highly esteemed members here, I thought I'd bring it up.

I have a Canon 24-70 and I like it a lot. Other than its weight, I have absolutely no complaints at all. Even so, I'm tempted to score a 24-105 because of its IS, extra range and size/weight. If it were f2.8 I would. The f4 is holding me back.

Shot with a Canon 24-70.

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/58508310-M.jpg

[jmathew]

...need to cook, clean and perhaps perform as a sex toy in order for it to pass

I dont know what youre shooting with...but if its compatible, the EF-S 17-55 2.8 may be a good option. I've got one and love it, fits the $ range, and when the autofocus and image stabilization are both running....whoa baby....

[claudermilk]

Looks like Ross learned a whole lot in that thread. :thumb There's another resource for lenses now available again: Photodo (http://www.photodo.com/)They already have a decent selection in the database, though some glaring holes such as the 24-70 brick.


I've seen the Sigma 24-70/2.8 compared favorable with the Canon version many times, so it ought to be a good candidate. Of course, if you can stand the pain of purchase, the Canon's 24-70 is worth every penny IMHO--it currently lives on my 20D as the walk-around. I wouldn't worry about hanging it off the Rebel (I've seen 100-400's and larger on them); you put what you need on the body to get the shot.

[Manfr3d]

Looks like Ross learned a whole lot in that thread. :thumb There's another resource for lenses now available again: Photodo (http://www.photodo.com/)They already have a decent selection in the database, though some glaring holes such as the 24-70 brick.


I've seen the Sigma 24-70/2.8 compared favorable with the Canon version many times, so it ought to be a good candidate. Of course, if you can stand the pain of purchase, the Canon's 24-70 is worth every penny IMHO--it currently lives on my 20D as the walk-around. I wouldn't worry about hanging it off the Rebel (I've seen 100-400's and larger on them); you put what you need on the body to get the shot.

But you always have to consider that
you can get 95% of what the Canon
delivers at 1/3rd of the price by going
Tamron or Sigma (?) here.

[Jeffro]

But you always have to consider that
you can get 95% of what the Canon
delivers at 1/3rd of the price by going
Tamron or Sigma (?) here.

More quality comes from the lens, than from the camera, in my opinion, so stick with Canon glass....you can't go wrong. :thumb

Why put third rate glass on a first rate body? :scratch

Ok, I'm ready....let me have it, I can take it! :D

[Manfr3d]

More quality comes from the lens, than from the camera, in my opinion, so stick with Canon glass....you can't go wrong. :thumb
Why put third rate glass on a first rate body? :scratch

Ok, I'm ready....let me have it, I can take it! :D

That's just another way of asking for a whipping :wink

Of course if money is no issue one would
always go for the thing that is 5% better
(that is not 3rd rate by any means).
But in the real world, ppl have to make
tradeoffs. And if you dont need or can
affort that ferrari, why not go with a
solid beamer that still shines. Both can
take you where you want to go.

And while we're at it:

Its a common misbelief that quality
comes from glass or camera. The
photographer makes all the difference.

Adams did well without vitamin L.

:thumb

[pathfinder]

Cmason,

The two lenses you are really having to choose between is the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L and the Tamron 28-75 Di f2.8. Both are excellent lenses - I own both and shoot with both. I used the Tamron lens for a year before I bought the Canon 24-70. The Canon 24-70 is MUCH larger, heavier, more expensive, and probably 'slightly' sharper at f2.8. I use the 24-70 on a full frame camera - the size and weight match the full frame heft.

The Tamron 28-75 Di f2.8 is not quite as wide as the 24-70. 4mm does not sound like a lot, but a 24mm lens is definitely wider than a 28 if that is important. On an APS sensor sized camera like a 20D or an XT, I think the size of the Tamron is much more suitable than the Canon 24-70 which weighs more than the 20D body does. I rarely shoot the Tamron at f2.8 anyway.

Both lenses are excellent at f4 and smaller - I have 13x19 prints from the Tamron lens that are razor sharp. And I have a shot of a wedding veil with the 24-70 that you can see each thread in the veil, shot with a 1DsMkll.

So finally for me, it really comes down to size and weight. I kept both lenses and still use both. But image quality difference really does not intrude into my decision as to which lens to use. More like size and weight.

On the smaller sensor camera, I never use the 240-70mmf2.8 L, just the little Tammy. The Tamron lens is on my 20D right now, which is where it usually resides.

Waxy mentioned the 24-105 f4 IS L - and wanting it in f2.8. It would be even bigger and havier than the 24-70 f2.8 L if it were bigger than f4. One of the things I like about the 24-105 f4 IS L, is that it IS smaller than the 24-70 f2.8 L. Significantly smaller and lighter. And longer too. Again, I use this lens - the 24-105f4 IS L on a full frame camera usually out of doors. Indoors, I will usually swap it off for the 24-70f2.8.

If I had to choose between the Tamron 28-75 Di f2.8, and the 24-70 f2.8 L, and the 24-105 f4 IS L, I think if pressed I would choose the 24-105 f4 IS L. I like it that much. On a full frame camera it is what I chose to take with me routinely.

For the money, the little Tamron can't be beaten.

[cmason]

Thanks everyone. Pathfinder, that is really sort of the conclusion I am coming to. I really want the Canon, but I just can't see how I can justify it. I have another L lens and it is my favorite, but a grand is alot of cash. The Tamron seems to come out on top.

I have also considered the 17-50 range lenses, but aside from the Canon 17-55, (another $1000 lens), the 3rd parties do not seem to get as good reviews, and I am not sure I need that wide every day.

So, I decided to stop reading and start trying. I have business in NYC next week, so I am taking the earlier flight and will spend the afternoon at B&H, trying all of them out...that should be all the "review" I need!

[pathfinder]

The Canon 17-85 f4-f5.6 IS EF-S (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=351548&is=USA&addedTroughType=search) is a very similar lens to the 24-104f4 IS L for a full frame body.

Not L, not quite as fast as the L at the long end, but a very useful set of focal lengths for an APS sensor body, and not that much more moolah than the Tammy also. It takes 67mm filters just like than Tamron 28-75 f2.8 also. Michael Reichman liked this lens also if my memory serves, I cannot find the link for that right now though.

For the price of a 24-70 f2.8 L or a 24-105 f4 IS L, you could have the Tamron 28-75f2.8 for low light, and the Canon 17-85 f4-5.6 IS EF-S for wider and longer zoom range out of doors. Just a disturbing thought:):

[Steve Cavigliano]

Cmason,
I know I am entering this discussion late, but I agree with PF. If you can afford a Canon, more power to you. If not, contrary to Jeffro's comments, 3rd party lenses aren't always 3rd rate. Many perform at, or close to, L glass levels. The Tamron 28-75 F2.8 is one of them. For the price it's hard to beat this lens. Plus it can be used on a full frame camera in the future, unlike the 17-85mm.

Steve

[Jeffro]

Cmason,
I know I am entering this discussion late, but I agree with PF. If you can afford a Canon, more power to you. If not, contrary to Jeffro's comments, 3rd party lenses aren't always 3rd rate.
Steve

I was just having some fun guys....:rofl

But I do prefer to save for the Canon glass, L-if I can! :lust

[cmason]

Update: I went to B&H today, and tried out the Canon, the Tamron and the Sigma. While I haven't used them to any degree to compare their quality, here are a few observations from the "hand-holding":

Canon: This lens is HUGE. It is far larger than I thought. I makes my XT look like an accessory. It is silent when focusing, and quick, very quick on focus. But, just playing with it for 10 mins, walking around the store, it was really quite heavy, not a lens that I had in mind for my walkaround lens. I was kinda disappointed actually.

Sigma: a bit smaller than the Canon, but it doesnt have HSM like my 10-20mm, and due to this, it is very very noisy when focusing. It sounds like a power tool. After a few focuses, I took it off.

Tamron: This was the "Goldilocks" lens...just right. It is quite compact, it extends further than I thought, and the focus is quieter than the Sigma, but not anything as quiet as the Canon. It includes a lens hood that is a pretty cheap plastic, but disappointingly, no lens pouch.

If I had time, I would have pulled in the 17-55 into the mix, but it is a $1000+ lens that isnt even an L, so that may have been difficult. I had already tried the 17-85 IS, and that was a fairly nice lens, but I was looking for a constant 2.8 here, so that was not on the list. But as someone said, I could get both of these for the L money. I will likely look into a 50 1.4, or 30 1.4 instead. But that is next time I have money to burn.

Thanks for all your help, I will enjoy this Tamron, and maybe someday, when I have spare change, I can get the big Canon, but I havent yet brought myself to spend that much on a lens yet....

[ntotrr]

Yeah I know, do a search...I have, but I still need some support from you guys...

I am looking for a replacement lens for my old, tired and really crappy 35-80 Canon lens. I have a 10-20, and a 70-200 that are fine, so something in the middle is what I am seeking. I would prefer something on the bright side, like a fixed 2.8.

Here is the deal: I have $ burning a hole in my pocket...no fixed amount, but it does need to pass "spousal approval limit". Testing for this limit so far has revealed that a $1000 lens might also need to cook, clean and perhaps perform as a sex toy in order for it to pass. In other words, I might be able to swing it, but it will cost me in filling the 'honey-do' jar.

So, I am considering the following:

Canon 24-70 f2.8 L $1,150
Tamron 28-70 f2.8 $379
Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX $399
Sigma 24-60 f2.8 EX $429


I already have a Sigma EX 10-20mm, and I am very happy with it. Not sure about Tamron, and as for the Canon, well of course I would like it, but not sure my wife would. I am also a bit concerned about the size of it on my XT.

Any experience in comparing these lenses? Anyone know the differences in the Sigma models, aside from filter size? Is the Tamron as well built as the Sigma EX, and a reliable lens?

Thanks for your help....



I use the Sigma 24-70mm EX DG on my Sigma SD9. It's a very nice lens, good sharpness and build-quality. I use that more than any of my other lenses (50mm EX, 105mm EX, 17-35mm EX, 70-300mm) combined.

I have a Nikon D50 and chose the Tokina 28-70mm f2.8 AT-X. It has good sharpness above f2.8 and the build-quality on this lens is second to none. It can be pruchased for around $ 250.00.