Canon EF 28-135mm vs Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8??

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

07/31/2005 09:06:22 PM · #1

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8
vs
Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

Talk about a dilema! Both of these lenses have great reviews. Both are supposedly extremely sharp. Both can be gotten for a similar price.
Here is my problem. I want the reach. The Canon has 80% more reach...that's pretty significant to me. But 2.8 all the way through on the Tamron also sounds great.
Does the IS on the Canon compensate for the slower f-stop of the lens? If so, I would probably go with the Canon. Help, please!

Message edited by author 2005-07-31 21:10:17.

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

07/31/2005 09:22:33 PM · #2

I considered both of these too. I was told in two separate places that the IS was worth a "full stop" but no more. That means at 75mm, you are going to be better off with the 2.8 HOWEVER, at 80mm and 100mm, and 120mm, you'll be better with the Canon - it really depends what you want. I LOVE my Tamron, but I do wish I had the range.

krazyivan

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 50mm f1.2L

07/31/2005 09:22:51 PM · #3

If the reach is not that much of a factor, I would go for the Tamron lens, hands down. F/2.8 through out the range, the optics are great and it's not as heavy as the Canon.

I had both lenses, sold my Canon for the Tamron. Eventually I was able to upgrade to the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L. The Canon 28-135mm is excellent for the outdoors, but for low light situations you'd better have a tripod and the IS on. The tamron is excellent in low light, a really great all around lens for the money.

07/31/2005 09:36:41 PM · #4

Originally posted by krazyivan:

The Canon is not as good as the Tamron in low-light situations?? I have heard criticisms that the Tamron sometimes has issues with fishing in low-light, so it's a bit surprising to hear you say that, considering you've had both lenses.
I definitely would want use this lens for indoor situations with limited light. How much "better" would you say it is than the Canon when shooting indoor with no flash? I mean, surely the IS on the Canon compensates for something..

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

07/31/2005 09:39:21 PM · #5

Originally posted by mavrik:

no this is not true. The 2.8 is always better than the IS. You cannot stop motion with IS, you can only negate camera shake. The tamron is a better lens imho. I bet if you saw the review pictures side by side the tamron would blow away the canon.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

07/31/2005 09:40:35 PM · #6

In my opinion, they are lenses for different situations.

I bought the 28-135 because I use primes indoors and for portraits already. So the I wanted the 5x zoom for "snapshot" type stuff when I wanted only 1 lens ... but I don't use it for portraits, or any more "serious" stuff I do.

The Tamron is much more suitable for low light event photography and portraits, but as noted, has nowhere near the reach.

I have primes which do the same thing as the Tamron, so for me - the Canon was a no brainer.

not sure if this helps

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

07/31/2005 09:44:28 PM · #7

Originally posted by kyebosh:

no this is not true. The 2.8 is always better than the IS. You cannot stop motion with IS, you can only negate camera shake

I'd take f3.5 with IS over 2.8 without - the extra shutter speed vs. the chance at removing some of the shake is worth it. That's all I'm saying.

07/31/2005 09:52:58 PM · #8

Originally posted by mavrik:

Originally posted by kyebosh:
no this is not true. The 2.8 is always better than the IS. You cannot stop motion with IS, you can only negate camera shake

I'd take f3.5 with IS over 2.8 without - the extra shutter speed vs. the chance at removing some of the shake is worth it. That's all I'm saying.

maybe if you're not using a tripod or a monopod... but if you're in low light you should be. As soon as you add that to the equation, the 2.8 is better... PERIOD. Also the F3.5 rating is only good to what... 35mm before it goes to F4.0 minimum? I'm not really sure where it changes, but variable aperture lenses are annoying like that.

07/31/2005 09:53:18 PM · #9

hmm...I guess when it comes down to it, only I can decide whether the reach or the extra stops (which, at least for hand-shake are somewhat compensated for by IS) is more important.

But how do these lenses compare optically?
Kyebosh, you made it sound like the Tamron is optically in a different league than the Canon.

This is a really important decision for me, and I appreciate the input, because I want to get one more lens and stop spending my money on equipment for at least a little while!! :)

07/31/2005 09:55:07 PM · #10

Originally posted by crank2o:

The tamron is on par with sharpness compaired to a good copy of the 24-70L, I've never even heard somebody compair the canon 28-135IS to the 24-70L.

07/31/2005 10:06:19 PM · #11

Originally posted by kyebosh:

Originally posted by crank2o:
hmm...I guess when it comes down to it, only I can decide whether the reach or the extra stops (which, at least for hand-shake are somewhat compensated for by IS) is more important.

But how do these lenses compare optically?
Kyebosh, you made it sound like the Tamron is optically in a different league than the Canon.

This is a really important decision for me, and I appreciate the input, because I want to get one more lens and stop spending my money on equipment for at least a little while!! :)

The tamron is on par with sharpness compaired to a good copy of the 24-70L, I've never even heard somebody compair the canon 28-135IS to the 24-70L.

Hah, well now you have!
What f-stop is the Tamron sharpest at? I mean, if the the Tamron is sharpest at f5.6 or 6.3, then it would sort of defeat the purpose of buying a 2.8 lens based on the assumption of better low-light image quality if it's optimal only at a higher f-stop...

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/31/2005 10:07:33 PM · #12

Originally posted by crank2o:

Originally posted by kyebosh:

Originally posted by crank2o:
hmm...I guess when it comes down to it, only I can decide whether the reach or the extra stops (which, at least for hand-shake are somewhat compensated for by IS) is more important.

But how do these lenses compare optically?
Kyebosh, you made it sound like the Tamron is optically in a different league than the Canon.

This is a really important decision for me, and I appreciate the input, because I want to get one more lens and stop spending my money on equipment for at least a little while!! :)

The tamron is on par with sharpness compaired to a good copy of the 24-70L, I've never even heard somebody compair the canon 28-135IS to the 24-70L.

Hah, well now you have!
What f-stop is the Tamron sharpest at? I mean, if the the Tamron is sharpest at f5.6 or 6.3, then it would sort of defeat the purpose of buying a 2.8 lens based on the assumption of better low-light image quality if it's optimal only at a higher f-stop...

EVERY lens is optimal when stopped down. Usually between F8 and F11.

brianlh

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

07/31/2005 10:12:52 PM · #13

The Tamron is an excellent lens throughout. the 28-135 is also good, but anywhere you go you will hear that the 28-75 blows the competition away in that price range when it comes to optical quality. as kyebosh mentioned, it is sometimes compared to the 24-70L (though the 24-70L is still considered a bit better, from what I have heard). If you really want the extra reach and IS, go for the Canon.. if optical quality and/or wider aperture is more important to you (don't forget about blurring backgrounds and, as kyebosh mentioned, stopping motion - the 2.8 isn't only used for camera shake, which is the only thing the IS will do) then go with the Tamron.

Message edited by author 2005-07-31 22:13:13.

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

07/31/2005 10:15:36 PM · #14

Originally posted by kyebosh:

EVERY lens is optimal when stopped down. Usually between F8 and F11.

I think that's true as a general rule, especially when talking about budget and consumer grade lenses. But when you get to some of the higher quality lenses you find their excellent sharpness extends to the widest aperture. I find this to be the case with my old non-IS Canon 300mm f4.0L, and have seen it written about several others.

07/31/2005 10:16:43 PM · #15

Originally posted by coolhar:

Originally posted by kyebosh:
EVERY lens is optimal when stopped down. Usually between F8 and F11.

I think that's true as a general rule, especially when talking about budget and consumer grade lenses. But when you get to some of the higher quality lenses you find their excellent sharpness extends to the widest aperture. I find this to be the case with my old non-IS Canon 300mm f4.0L, and have seen it written about several others.

that 300mm F4 L is crazy though! It's sharper than the new 2.8! Oh and even that lens improves stopped down a bit, maybe not as much, but it does improve. look at the MTF chart.

Message edited by author 2005-07-31 22:17:23.

07/31/2005 10:19:06 PM · #16

You guys are very convincing. Appreciate the suggestions.
Seems like the Tamron is the winner.

... guess now I'll just have to get the freakin' 70-200f4 sometime down the road. Thanks a lot! :-p

Message edited by author 2005-07-31 22:20:29.

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

07/31/2005 10:20:25 PM · #17

Originally posted by crank2o:

You guys are very convincing. Appreciate the suggestions.
Seems like the Tamron is the winner :-p

There is a problem though... finding it in stock ;-)

Canon EOS-60D

07/31/2005 10:20:30 PM · #18

Originally posted by crank2o:

You guys are very convincing. Appreciate the suggestions.
Seems like the Tamron is the winner :-p

Amen. ;)

07/31/2005 10:21:40 PM · #19

Originally posted by kyebosh:

Originally posted by crank2o:
You guys are very convincing. Appreciate the suggestions.
Seems like the Tamron is the winner :-p

There is a problem though... finding it in stock ;-)

Hahah! Greeeeeeeat. The next step.
Hey, I also heard there were some factory-based issues, with some back-focusing and what not on a couple of the lenses. Eh, whatever, I'll just have to find a place that has a good return policy.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

07/31/2005 10:23:05 PM · #20

Originally posted by crank2o:

Originally posted by kyebosh:

Originally posted by crank2o:
You guys are very convincing. Appreciate the suggestions.
Seems like the Tamron is the winner :-p

There is a problem though... finding it in stock ;-)

Hahah! Greeeeeeeat. The next step.
Hey, I also heard there were some factory-based issues, with some back-focusing and what not on a couple of the lenses. Eh, whatever, I'll just have to find a place that has a good return policy.

If you find one locally it might be worth the extra price to know you're getting one that doesn't have issues.

PS: Tamron does have a student discount... if you can find it.

Message edited by author 2005-07-31 22:23:36.

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

07/31/2005 10:24:19 PM · #21

Originally posted by kyebosh:

maybe if you're not using a tripod or a monopod... but if you're in low light you should be. As soon as you add that to the equation, the 2.8 is better... PERIOD.

LOL I use the 2.8 tamron on a monopod - you're preaching to the choir. :) However, tell everyone in the wedding threads about monopods - they all told me you shouldn't use one - just use flash. lol

M

brianlh

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/31/2005 10:26:16 PM · #22

Now that we've convinced you, is it a bad time to say that the Tamron I bought locally (used) is of sub-par quality? :P

I plan on sending it in to the factory once I move (I'm moving soon and don't want them to take so long that it comes back to the wrong address) to get it looked at.

Main thing is that it is often hailed to be of excellent optical quality, and I have seen the shots to prove it. Supposedly the Chinese-made (as opposed to Japanese) have more quality control issues. I'm sure Tamron will fix any issues, if there are any.

Just had to throw this in there for a little extra confusion ;)

07/31/2005 10:28:18 PM · #23

Originally posted by brianlh:

yeah a lot of people who need the best quality from these lenses will send back copies until they get a great one. I've heard of people sending back more than 5, 6, 7 copies of the 24-70L for example.

07/31/2005 10:29:56 PM · #24

*big SIGH*