| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/28/2005 02:08:41 PM · #1 |
Am I crazy for wanting the Canon over the Tamron?
Canon name, superior build, super professional look, silent and better focusing, 4mm wider. Is this enough to justify the almost $600 price difference?
If you have $1200 to spend on lenses, what would you spend it on?
|
|
|
|
05/28/2005 02:15:38 PM · #2 |
I spent on the Canon. I love the heft of the lens, and it has given me some shots that I appreciate a lot. I'd try out the lenses you'd buy at the shop, and I reckon that's the best way to choose between two different but similar lenses. That experience is probably more valuable than any opinion others can give. Good luck.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2005 02:21:11 PM · #3 |
Depends on whats important to you. If feel you "need" the pro build quality of the Canon, then there ya go.
However, most folks probably don't "need" it. I know I don't, but that's me.
Also, I've never used the Canon, but I have the Tamron and I know its sharp. Be aware that the AF sux in low-light, just like with every zoom I have ever used. I tested mine with manual focus before I bought it, and, wow, for a zoom it really delivers the goods. And I typically hate zooms. The build quality is good, though I sure it's not as heavy-duty as the Canon. But hey, it has a 6 year warranty, so save your reciept and enjoy.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2005 04:42:28 PM · #4 |
I have the Tamron and frankly don't understand all the talk I find on the internet about it having a lesser build quality. It's not as heavy as the Canon if that's your idea of build quality. There is nothing about it's feel or appearance that says "cheap lens". I have some of those in my bag. The only advantage the Canon has, IMHO, is the 4mm if you want wide angle capability. The closest comparison I have with a Canon name on it is my 85mm 1.8, and I think there are pretty close to equal in build quality and image quality. The Tamron takes a smaller filter so you can save a little more there if you intend on buying a UV or a Cir Pol.
If you have $1200 to spend, I'd reccommend you get:
1) Tamron Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Autofocus
and
2) Canon Telephoto EF 135mm f/2.0L USM Autofocus
Get both for $1204.90 at B&H after rebate but before S&H.
Message edited by author 2005-05-28 16:46:16.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2005 04:50:38 PM · #5 |
why recommend a lens that isn't even close to the same purpose? The 135L surely is one of the best lenses canon makes but that doesn't mean that everyone has to have it just because they can afford it. Buy what you have use for. If you do however have a use for it, it's a fabulous from what I understand.
About the 2 you actually asked about:
I have seen that the tamron is just as good as the canon in terms of sharpness. The colors of the L lens are better and the focus is faster. I would probably go with the tamron, or a sigma 24-70 macro. remember that 4mm is actually a bigger deal than the 5mm at the other end. I've heard issues with quality control on the canon just as much as with the tamron, you might need to send either of them back to get a good copy. Hopefully if you do purchase one you will be lucky the first time!
|
|
|
|
05/28/2005 05:05:45 PM · #6 |
the 24-70L 2.8 is and outstanding piece of glass, almost as good as the 70-200L 2.8 IS.
I have a lot of respect for tamron products BUT they are fairly slow when it comes to focus. |
|
|
|
05/28/2005 06:29:01 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
... why recommend a lens that isn't even close to the same purpose? |
Because I believe the Tamron would fulfill the need plex expressed and the 135 would be a great way to use the rest of his money. He fills the niche he was shopping to fill, and on top of that, gets into another area with a another top quality lens. The main point is that plex doesn't have to dump his whole bankroll to fill the first desire. He can have enough left over to do something else in addition. Doesn't have to be a 135, I don't know what he already has. But with that extra money he can get another very good lens, maybe the Sigma 70-200 f 2.8 for $839, it's a pretty well thought of lens. With his budget you can get more than one good lens.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2005 06:55:00 PM · #8 |
I have the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L and love it. The build and optics are 2nd to none. I actually sold my Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di lens to upgrade to the canon. I liked the Tamron, for the money you cannot beat it.
If you want a professional lens, than the 24-70mm Canon is your choice. However the optics on the Tamron come very close to that of the Canon, The major difference is in the build of the lenses. The Canon is built like a MACK truck. You can literally drop this lens on a concrete floor and nothing would happen to it, (please do not try this). I can't say that you could do that with the Tamron.
The Tamron is built well, but has a PLASTIC feeling, IMO.
You may want to try renting the lenses to actually compare the 2. Run your own tests and see which one is suited for your needs.
Good Luck!! |
|
|
|
05/28/2005 07:21:30 PM · #9 |
Get the 28-75 2.8 Tamron AND the 17-40L Canon lens. I have the Tamron and it's a superb lens. With $1200, you'll get a L lens, and a 2.8 and cover 17-75mm well.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2005 08:16:37 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Gil P:
the 24-70L 2.8 is and outstanding piece of glass, almost as good as the 70-200L 2.8 IS.
I have a lot of respect for tamron products BUT they are fairly slow when it comes to focus. |
Guess it depends how much you shoot, whether it's economically justified. I have to agree with the sentiment expressed by Gil. Just bought the 24-70 after lusting for it for a year, worth the money IMHO. Superior low light performance along with the weathersealing and quality build is why I bought it. (I shoot in dust a lot).
|
|
|
|
05/29/2005 08:58:06 AM · #11 |
The Sturdyness, build, USM speeds, wheater seals, Grip size are the key advantages, I have had the Tamron on Demo and aside from a bit of Vignetting it's a spectacular piece of glass, BUT it certainly does not rival the 24-70L because of all the factors I mentioned... the focus speed being the prime reason. It has a lot to do with your type of photography and your working conditions.
In the end, consider the VALUE of the lens.. a --2.8 USM L-- lens retains it's value for a long time (until they upgrade EF anyway).
Message edited by author 2005-05-29 08:59:58. |
|
|
|
05/29/2005 10:20:07 AM · #12 |
I must be one of the only ones, but I have the Tamron and am not head of heals in love with it.
I shoot weddings and use it every week.
Yes it can produce nice shots but definitely does better outdoors, and at closer ranges.
I find it doesnt focus as well at a distance, and I find the color is not so true to life.
Some might say i just got a bad one, but this was the second one I got as the first was so soft at a distance I exchanged it.
The lens is better than the Canon 28-105 though.
Having said all that, this lens IS a good lens. The canon is so much heavier to lug around and is so much more expensive.
I would sooner get the Tamron and the Canon 70-200 F4 or the Canon 17-40 F4 along with it.
*unless you are a professional who makes a living with this all and very very picky.
I am a professional and find it does the job.
|
|
|
|
05/29/2005 10:38:40 AM · #13 |
I'm not a pro, and I chose the Canon. I have no direct experience with the Tamron, but I have to say that the Canon 24-70 is so darn good, it LIVES on my camera. It is the lens I feel most comfortable with having on the camera when I want to pull the camera from the bag and shoot quickly. It's versatile and just damn good. It never leaves me feeling "should have used a prime." Incredibly sharp, contrasty, accurate colors, great bokeh, fast USM, great build... what's not to love?
And if I should ever need or want to sell it (fat chance!), Its resale value will be a large portion of its purchase price.
|
|
|
|
05/29/2005 11:08:55 AM · #14 |
$1150 vs $370. That's a $780 difference! WOW!
Unless I was a serious pro, shooting under difficult and dusty/wet conditions, and/or had lots of extra money, I cannot see why I would spend that kind of extra money.
I have the Tamron, and it is an AWESOME lens. Very sharp wide open, great contrast. I have not had any issues focusing. Build quality is very good, the zoom mechanism is precise and very smooth.
I have not used the Canon, and I'm sure it is one very fine piece of glass given my experiences with other L lenses (17-40 + 70-200 f/4), but I certainly consider my Tamron to be on par with the rest of my kit.
One thing: You have to get a good copy. Unfortunately, they are not all built the same.
That being said, I'd agree with the suggestion of getting the Tamron, and if you have $1200 burning a whole in your pocket, then spend the extra on one of the other L lenses.
|
|
|
|
05/29/2005 11:18:18 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Get the 28-75 2.8 Tamron AND the 17-40L Canon lens. I have the Tamron and it's a superb lens. With $1200, you'll get a L lens, and a 2.8 and cover 17-75mm well. |
Exactly what I would suggest: I just wish i had the funds to go out and get that combination :-)
e |
|
|
|
05/30/2005 09:34:15 PM · #16 |
Looking at Popular Photography's review of the 24-70 L and Tamron's 28-75, the Canon outperforms it on their SQF tests. Plus it doesn't extend out when zooming. If's that is worth the price difference is upto you and your needs.
For me, if I had $1200, I'd buy the Tamron 28-75 (for $400), Tamron 17-35/Sigma 18-50 EX DC f2.8 (for $500) and have $300 left over for a bunch of filters and other accessories.
Message edited by author 2005-05-31 01:18:29.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2005 09:36:15 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by yido:
Looking at Popular Photography's review of the 24-70 L and Tamron's 28-75, the Canon outperforms it on their SQF tests. Plus it doesn't extend out when zooming. If's that is worth the price difference is upto you and your needs.
For me, if I had $1200, I'd buy the Tamron 28-75 (for $400), Tamron 17-35 (for $500) and have $300 left over for a bunch of filters and other accessories. |
Got that right!
|
|
|
|
05/30/2005 09:39:10 PM · #18 |
| 24-70mm f/2.8L...lives on my camera... |
|
|
|
06/02/2005 07:20:01 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by yido:
Plus it doesn't extend out when zooming. |
Uh, wrong. Look here (second set up lens pictures). It does extend.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/17/2025 05:19:39 PM EDT.
