| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/03/2006 09:37:16 PM · #1 |
Just wondering if anyone knew any major differences between these two lenses and which one they felt was better. They are priced about the same.
The:
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras
or the:
Tamron Autofocus 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon SLR Cameras |
|
|
|
12/03/2006 09:50:19 PM · #2 |
| I would say they are really two different lenses. Although both atart at 28mm that is where the similarity really stops. The difference between the 75 mm and the 135mm is pretty significant. The 2.8 will stop action better than the 3.5-5.6 but the Canon "may" help one stop in shooter movement if you start it at 3.5. If you want the longer zoom go with the Canon, if you want the better low-light stop action go with the Tamron. Just depends on what other lenses you have or plan to get. Both are pretty good, just not really comparable side-by-side. |
|
|
|
12/03/2006 10:06:39 PM · #3 |
| Is the clarity pretty much the same would you say? |
|
|
|
12/03/2006 11:29:05 PM · #4 |
| That Tamron has legend status around these parts, and I have never used the Canon you mention. My Tamron 28-75 is good to very good on sharpness and contrast and is also a constant 2.8. |
|
|
|
12/04/2006 12:49:25 AM · #5 |
I think there have been a few tests that show the Tamron 28-75 is better than the Canon in most if not all respects. I'll see if I can find the one that I read, it sold me on mine.
Linky
Message edited by author 2006-12-04 00:51:23.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2006 03:15:47 AM · #6 |
The Tamron is the classic zoom standard lens with 2.8 aperture, not really in the same category as a 6x variable aperture zoom with IS.
It'll let you isolate the subject better by shooting at 2.8, and actually use faster shutter speeds. The 28-75 is an awesome lens, I don't think many people who have used it are unhappy with it. I was very happy with mine, but I had to sell it. If I was buying one again, I *might* save up for the Canon 24-70L, but that's because I've been infected with the 'pro gear' disease, and weather sealing and USM combined with the possibly better image quality sound good. |
|
|
|
12/04/2006 08:40:58 AM · #7 |
I have the Canon 28-135. I was considering trading it for the Tamron mentioned but paid a bit more and got the Canon 24-70L for the wider aperture, faster focus, little wider focal length, etc (not saying get the 24-70L, but used as example to the similar Tamron). The reach of the 28-135 was very nice, gave sharp images, the IS helped a bit at times. But I wanted/needed more. They're two different lenses with different strengths, and you need to figure out which strength would suit you better. If you want more of a walk-around lens where you can get in tighter go for the Canon. (28mm on a 1.6 cropped sensor isn't wide enough at times though) If you're going to be shooting weddings or events where low light is a possibility, or portraits where a nice shallow DOF is preferred go for the Tamron. Me personally, I would rather take a few steps forward with the Tamron and have better control of the photo.
Edit: Haven't used the 28-135 since the upgrade 8 months ago, so that says how much I prefer the aperture over focal length.
Message edited by author 2006-12-04 08:46:17. |
|
|
|
12/04/2006 10:29:48 AM · #8 |
| I tested the Canon 24-70L against the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG Macro. In lots of shots at all different settings I found that the Sigma looked better in over 75% of the shots. I use it almost exclusively when shooting events and photos for a real estate magazine I shoot for and I'm very pleased with the Sigma. I have not owned the Tamron but here's another lens you should consider. |
|
|
|
12/04/2006 10:37:42 AM · #9 |
| Most of its use would be for more landscapes and portraits, so we are all in a agreement of the Tamron then eh?? Phantom now your just killin me. I was hopin to choose between just the two of those lenses. Thanks..haha |
|
|
|
12/04/2006 11:09:02 AM · #10 |
I had the 28-135 and I sold it to get the Tamron 28-75 f2.8. I've never regretted it one bit.
I was never happy with the 28-135. I thought it was poorly built and not really sharp, especially wide open. The IS helped, but it couldn't totally make up for the slow aperture.
Another thing to consider is the image you see in the viewfinder. A faster lens will give you a brighter image, making it easier to see wht you're looking at, if you shoot in dim light.
Also, the small aperture of the 28-135 made it hard to get a nice shallow DOF for portraits.
Message edited by author 2006-12-04 11:09:38. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/07/2026 04:31:11 AM EST.
