DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> 24-70mm - canon, sigma, or tamron?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 26, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/28/2005 01:23:14 PM · #1
Well, I'm looking to buy myself some nice little lenses for christmas.. I'm looking at buying a 24-70mm f2.8. My question is, does anyone out there have experience with the Sigma version of this lens? Or the Tamron 28-70 version? And if there's anyone out there who has used both the canon and tamron or sigma, how do they compare? Especially in terms of sharpness and focusing speed.. I'm aware that Canon will blow everyone else out of the water, but I'm willing to save $700 and settle if the difference isn't TOO bad.
 11/28/2005 01:30:46 PM · #2
And while I'm here, what about the sigma 18-50 f2.8? Any reviews on that one?
 11/28/2005 01:46:58 PM · #3
I LOVE my Sigma macro lens, but currently I am sitting around waiting for the UPS truck to deliver my christmas/anniversary/birthday present - the Canon 24-70 L f/2.8 !!!!!!!

It was shipped SEVEN days ago (from B+H) via THREE day UPS.
I bet I'll be last on the list even today :-(

I have ants in my pants and a hellish time waiting even longer *sigh*
 11/28/2005 01:54:07 PM · #4
I have the Sigma 24-70 f2.8

My Reviews
Heavy - Not a lens you can place round your neck for long periods of time
Nice looking and build - The black finish is good, Big front element makes others envy your equipment. Comes with hood and carrying case.
Very Noisy AF - I wouldnt use this at a quite occasion you can really hear this bad boy.
Images - Very sharp throughout the focal lenght.
11/28/2005 01:58:48 PM · #5
I used the Sigma 28-70 2.8 for a long time with great results. It's better than they newer 24-70 they produced. I loved the darn thing until it took a spill and broke a couple elements. Went up to the Canon 24-70 so I didn't have compatibility issues in the future. The Sigma is a great lens but may have to be rechipped if Canon decideds to screw with the internals again...

Oh yeah, got a great last shot from that lens by the way...
//www.davenitsche.com/sacrifice.htm
11/28/2005 01:58:58 PM · #6
If you are willing to accept a slight degradation in quality, I would recommend saving your $$$ and neck strain and go with the 28-75 from Tamron. I have seen the image quality from that lens and I think it is very good. I don't really think it is quite as good as the Canon, but if I had to do it over again I think I would have saved some money and gone with a lens that is not quite as heavy as the 24-70 tank from Canon. The Tamron 28-75 is incredibly good considering the low price tag. Put in other terms, I would much rather have the Canon EF-S 10-22mm lens AND the Tamron 28-75 instead of the 24-70 2.8 I have now, which is what the cost pretty much amounts to.
 11/28/2005 02:00:20 PM · #7
Originally posted by mffnqueen:
Well, I'm looking to buy myself some nice little lenses for christmas.. I'm looking at buying a 24-70mm f2.8. My question is, does anyone out there have experience with the Sigma version of this lens? Or the Tamron 28-70 version? And if there's anyone out there who has used both the canon and tamron or sigma, how do they compare? Especially in terms of sharpness and focusing speed.. I'm aware that Canon will blow everyone else out of the water, but I'm willing to save $700 and settle if the difference isn't TOO bad.


The Tamron 28-75mm is an absolutely outstanding lens. It's nowhere near as big and heavy as the Canon 24-70L. Optically it's very close, if not equal, and it's a LOT less expensive. So much less expensive that you can buy the Canon 10-22mm (a real honey of a lens, major cool) and the Tamron 28-75mm for about the price of the 24-70, which is what I ended up doing.

R.

edit to add: hahaha, rich, great minds and all that...

Message edited by author 2005-11-28 14:01:31.
 11/28/2005 02:03:33 PM · #8
I have the Tamron 28-70 and have tried a few Canon 24-70L as well.
In terms of sharpness, our group has had comparisons for pixel peeping as well and there doesn't seem to be much difference. I'd say that they are equal optically. The Canon is bigger, heavier, sturdier than the Tamron, and focuses a bit faster, but it also has this big lens hood that makes rotating the CPL difficult, especially at 70mm when the lens is retracted.

As for the Sigma versions, I've no experience with them. Popular photography has reviews of all the lens on line that you are considering, so you may want to check it out. Overall, I think if I had to do it again, I would actually get the Sigma 24-60 EX f2.8 as it's about $440 or so and they seem to like it more than the Sigma 28-70. I really don't think you can go wrong with any of these lenses you are considering as they all seem to perform well.

Photozon.de has very nice reviews of the Canon 24-70, Tamron 28-75, and the Sigma 18-50.

The Sigma 18-50 has very sharp center, ok corners, but seems to have lots of barrel distortion at the wide end and lots of CA as well.

Message edited by author 2005-11-28 14:05:19.
 11/28/2005 02:05:10 PM · #9
sorry to break up the q/a.. Davenit your gallery is fantastic
 11/28/2005 02:21:45 PM · #10
Originally posted by mffnqueen:
Well, I'm looking to buy myself some nice little lenses for christmas.. I'm looking at buying a 24-70mm f2.8. My question is, does anyone out there have experience with the Sigma version of this lens? Or the Tamron 28-70 version? And if there's anyone out there who has used both the canon and tamron or sigma, how do they compare? Especially in terms of sharpness and focusing speed.. I'm aware that Canon will blow everyone else out of the water, but I'm willing to save $700 and settle if the difference isn't TOO bad.


Since you are "aware that Canon will blow everyone else out of the water" I think that the best thing for you to do is to save up your money and get the Canon 24-70 f 2.8 L USM. Any course other than that is going to leave you walking around feeling like you have an inferior lens.

Personally, I was not as aware as you seem to be when I started investing in glass for my 20D. I have both the Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di and the Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM. They are both excellent. The biggest difference is that one cost me about twice as much used as the other did new. And one weighs more than the other. Resulting images can't be distinguished by my eyes, except that the Tamron is perhaps a slight bit warmer.
11/28/2005 02:28:27 PM · #11
My vote goes for the Tamron 28-75. It's AMAZING for the price. Like the others have said, the money you save by purchasing the Tamron can be spent on another lens. You won't be disappointed. :)
 11/28/2005 02:33:25 PM · #12
Originally posted by bear_music:
...you can buy the Canon 10-22mm (a real honey of a lens, major cool) and the Tamron 28-75mm for about the price of the 24-70, which is what I ended up doing.


I bought the same lenses- no regrets! ;-)
 11/28/2005 02:48:04 PM · #13
I made quite a bit of research and I'm going for Tamron 28-75. Looks like a real wonder lens. Can't wait to get my kit lens replaced. :)
 11/28/2005 03:13:00 PM · #14
Originally posted by jansku:
I made quite a bit of research and I'm going for Tamron 28-75. Looks like a real wonder lens. Can't wait to get my kit lens replaced. :)


Its a good lens, well worth the investment..
 11/28/2005 03:22:26 PM · #15
i allready bought the Canon 24-70 and am currently saving up for the 10-22mm :)

I´m happy with my choice.

might be cuz i am a snobb and want to stick to the canon lenses :P
 11/28/2005 04:11:10 PM · #16
Originally posted by Gunni:
i allready bought the Canon 24-70 and am currently saving up for the 10-22mm :)

I´m happy with my choice.

might be cuz i am a snobb and want to stick to the canon lenses :P


I wanted to do that too, but it was just impossible $-wise. I only had so much to spend, and I wanted the 70-200mm f/4L. If I got the 24-70 Canon, I'd have had to sacrifice the 70-200mm and cover the range with cheaper glass. The Tamron has astonished me with its competence. I had a borrowed 24-70 for half a day, and I couldn't tell the difference between them from the images. I'm sure it's there if you look deep enough, but it's not obvious.

R.

Message edited by author 2005-11-28 16:11:41.
 11/28/2005 05:30:52 PM · #17
I own a Canon 24-70 and I just repeat what has already been said.
Its good, It's HEAVY, expensive and working with filters with lens hood on is a pain. If weight and money matter than I would consider other options than the Canon.
 11/28/2005 05:59:40 PM · #18
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by bear_music:
...you can buy the Canon 10-22mm (a real honey of a lens, major cool) and the Tamron 28-75mm for about the price of the 24-70, which is what I ended up doing.


I bought the same lenses- no regrets! ;-)


I did the exact same thing, the Tamron is my walk around lens and it produces results that can hardly be distinguished from Canon L Lenses.
 11/28/2005 06:13:19 PM · #19
I have the Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DC and like it. The reviews (pro and amature) that i found on it when i was shopping (last may) compared it to the Canon 17-40 4L. THe Sigma is as sharp, similar focus speed, but is faster, has more range and costs less. I have no problems or issued with mine.

I canno speak on it's shapness as i use it as a low light light lens mostly (so i'm not shooting in the meat of the sharpness F stops) or as a wide angle where it is hard to tell or who cares. For ourdoor walkaround use i wanted more than 50mm though.

For my walkaround i went with (recently) a tamron 24-135 SP. Now that is a sharp lens with great range..but not constant aperture, it's one and only fault.

I hear great things about the tamron 28-75 2.8 (not sure on the exact mms there) but I cannot forego the usefullness of 18mm. Even compared to 24, it is a (for me) important and useable difference.

Depends - do you need the wide end? I do indoors, and that is when I need the 2.8 as well...or do you need the 50-80 range more at 2.8?

They need to make a 17-120 2.8 for $500!
 11/28/2005 07:05:59 PM · #20
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

They need to make a 17-120 2.8 for $500!


That would really be nice
 11/28/2005 07:12:14 PM · #21
I have used the sigma 24-70 a fair bit and really like it..
I now have the Tamron 28-75 ..
the biggest differences are size and weight..the Tamron is much smaller and quieter..
the minus is losing the wider angle...
I can't tell the difference in terms of quality at all..
11/29/2005 01:44:55 PM · #22
I have the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and like it. However, it uses an 82mm filter, where the Canon uses a 77mm filter. The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS also uses a 77mm filter, so if you've dreams of getting that lens, filter size is one more ounce toward the pounds of data in your decision.

And 77mm filters are a little cheaper than 82mm ones.

Message edited by author 2005-11-29 13:48:23.
 11/30/2005 06:36:08 AM · #23
Actually I have gone head to head with Mark simms (DPC) and 2 other photographers withthe tamron, and I have to say that the canon has superior optics. The colour and definition is better, coupled with the fact that the canon has faster more accurate focus.

So basically if you ever turn pro or buy a full frame camera you will be wasting your time with the tamron, and you will end up buying the canon 24-70L.
 11/30/2005 12:35:23 PM · #24
Originally posted by bucket:
I have used the sigma 24-70 a fair bit and really like it..
I now have the Tamron 28-75 ..
the biggest differences are size and weight..the Tamron is much smaller and quieter..
the minus is losing the wider angle...
I can't tell the difference in terms of quality at all..


I have the 24-70 and cannot hear it at all compared to my tamron lense. There is a 24-70 n ebay right now for I believe $4 or so from someone in BC. Do a search and you can find things pretty cheap
 11/30/2005 03:23:05 PM · #25
For what it's worth, I bought a Tamron 18-200 lense for my Canon Rebel XT, and I'm returning it. I bought the Canon 24-70mm 2.8L and the 70-200mm 2.8L (obviously a TON more money than the Tamron), and I couldn't be happier. I realize this in not an apples to apples comparison, but the Canon quality is unbelievable. But beyond image quality, the Canon focuses MUCH faster, and is dead quiet. The Tamron had a really hard time focusing in lower light, and often I found myself switching to manual focus to get off a shot. I know the L glass is a lot of $$, but IMHO it's worth it. Not to mention the resale value on L lenses is very good compared to Tamron as long as it's in good shape. Yes, they're heavy, and neither Canon lense I bought would be a good "walking around" lense, but if you want to shoot some seriously good pictures with an amazing lense, go L and never look back.

-Don
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/22/2025 07:55:27 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 09/22/2025 07:55:27 AM EDT.