Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Get on1's Perfect Effects 9.5 for FREE! (£48 value)

Tamron 28-75 xr di f2.8 v Canon 24-105 f4 L IS


trivets12 11 1.3k
21 Mar 2006 4:55AM
After searching the net for better lens than the Tamron mentioned above, I've come across the Canon 24-105. As I understand it, the 'L' lenses are the best from Canon but obviously a whole chunk more money!
My query is: will I notice a visible difference in prints - particularly larger sizes - from the Canon? Will f4 be sufficient to shoot inside i.e churches, registry offices without flash (bumping up ISO instead)? Is the fraction wider end and considerably longer end of the Canon going to give me more versatility with shots? If I go for the Canon, I will sell the Tamron and go into debt for the balance (not for long though)that's the drawback, unfortunately!
My interest is mainly wedding and portraits so will I be able to get blurry backgrounds more effectively with the Canon?
Would be grateful for your thoughts,
Many Thanks
Trudy

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

strawman 11 22.0k 16 United Kingdom
21 Mar 2006 5:14AM
Trudy, as you have the Tamron you can work out over the 28-75 range whether the f4 is a shallow enough depth of field for what you want and what shutter speed you will get. Do you ever find yourself wanting a longer lens? If no then you know the answer. Have you any problems with print quality. If not then why worry.

The Canon lens adds IS, so balances out some camera shake, but it cannot compensate for subjects moving, so there is a minimum shutter speed need.

Persoinaly I would keep your current lens and think more about Flash for set pieces, and look to add a different lens to your backup body for expanding your options. How about the 85mm prime? or even the good old 50mm prime.
trivets12 11 1.3k
21 Mar 2006 7:51AM
Strawman, thanks for your reply. I guess I should have worded my original post a bit better but having just been on night duty and not slept well the old brain is chugging a bit! I should really have asked 'if I were to splash out on one top notch piece of glass, with as versatile a zoom as possible without losing quality, and one which would cover 99% of my needs, would the Canon be the better option?' My other lenses i.e. longer zoom would be of the budget type as I use this length much much less. A lens such as the Canon will have to last me a very, very long time!
Trudy
TimJ 11 482 2 United Kingdom
21 Mar 2006 9:05AM
Check out the thread on the Canon EOS Forum Tamron SP 28-75 2.8 or Canon 24-105 F/4L .

I have the Tamron 28-75 and really like it, suits my needs very well. If money wasn't an issue then I probably would move to the 24-105 because I find I don't use f/2.8 that often anymore and the warm cast of the Tamron can be annoying to correct.

That said, I won't upgrade because I'd be paying a fair amount for the IS, which I don't see as an advantage; I take a lot of photos of moving objectives (mainly people!), where IS is no benefit because it only compensates for hand shake, not subject movement, and therefore the need for a fast shutter speed remains.

There will always be something new that seems like a better option, or so the adverts make us think. If only Tamron had made their new 17-50 f/2.8 a 17-70 f/2.8! Smile Then I would have been tempted!!! Sigma came close, but not quite!

All the best making your choice.
trivets12 11 1.3k
21 Mar 2006 11:18PM
Thanks for that link, Tim. The comment by the last chap about the low-light ability is what may swing it for me. He said he felt the Tamron spent time 'hunting' in order to focus in low light whereas the Canon was much quicker and had better colour,contrast etc.
Would still appreciate hearing from any epz'ers who may have any advice or experience with this lens?
Thanks
Trudy
ahollowa Plus
11 1.1k England
22 Mar 2006 2:56AM
I had the Tamron. I replaced it as I found it soft at 2.8. I replaced it with the 28-135IS Canon. This was no sharper wide open (3.5-5.6) than the Tamron at equal apertures but the IS allowed shooting at slower shutters so in less light. By all intents the 24-105 is sharper than the 28-135 so I would say a better low light performer than the Tamron.

cheers

Al.
mlewis 10 1.5k United Kingdom
22 Mar 2006 3:28AM
I have the Tamron lens and have no complaints at all with it. It is not the quiestest lens when focusing but that doesn't bother me and hunts no more than my other lenses - a Sigma 28-80 which the Tamron has replaced and a Canon 75-300. I haven't noticed any odd colouration with it and anyway when editing photos on the computer it is easy to remove/add colour casts at will usually.
mipettin 10 884 2 Scotland
22 Mar 2006 4:36AM
I have the Tamron and have compared it to my 20, 35 and 50 primes and it is as sharp as the primes and has better contrast. Maybe I got lucky as I often hear about variability between copies of Sigma and Tamron lenses.

Not sure the direct comparison is valid as the Tamron is 2-3 times less than the Canon (I got mine for 220 as it was a mail order return - I gambled thinking I might eBay if it was a duff copy - but very pleased with it's performance)

As for the motor not sure why folk go on about noise - aye the lens is near your ear and it aint silent but for what I use it for - portraits / general wedding lense the noise is not an issue whatsoever. The focus speed is responsive too - though not quite as quick as USM.

What I am hoping to do soon is borrow a 70-200 f/4 and see how a Canon f/4 L focuses in low light compared to the Tamron - at a recent wedding the Tamron nailed focus everytime bar one shot when shooting indoors.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.