Two Tamron Zooms or a single Canon L series Zoom?

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

05/31/2008 09:01:21 PM · #1

I'm trying to decide what my next lens purchase is going to be. I've decided from here on out I'm going to save up my money for fast lenses. Here are the lenses I'm considering.

Tamron
17-50mm f/2.8
28-75mm f/2.8
70-200mm f/2.8

Canon
16-35mm f/2.8 L
24-70mm f/2.8 L
70-200mm f/2.8 L

So for the price of a single Canon lens I can purchase 2 Tamron lenses. If price was no object I would of course buy nothing but Canon L lenses, but since it is...

are the Canon L lenses really that much better than the Tamron lenses?

andrewt

Nikon D810

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR

05/31/2008 09:04:33 PM · #2

I use the Tamron 28-75 (nikon mount) with my D3 & is a tremendous lens , image quality wise on par with the nikkors. It loses on AF speed & build quality though (but for the money,,,,)
Also has a friend using same lens on the Canon , no complaints either from him. Well worth getting.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

05/31/2008 09:21:47 PM · #3

I use the 28-75 XrDi as my walk around lens on my Canon, and next to the 50mm 1.8 it is the best bang for the buck lens there is. I have heard that quality controll can be an issue, but if you get one of the 90% it is a great lens.

Mick

Canon EOS-5D

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

05/31/2008 11:53:57 PM · #4

Originally posted by Moose408:

are the Canon L lenses really that much better than the Tamron lenses?

Yes, they are, but perhaps not enough better to justify double the price tag of the Tamron lenses. Those big white Canon lenses are real attention grabbers though. :)

If you want to impress the yokels, get the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L lens.
If image quality is all important, get any of the Canon lenses you listed.
If lens versatility is important and you have a limited budget, get the Tamron lenses.

Ken

Canon EOS-7D

06/01/2008 12:15:46 AM · #5

We have both the Tamron 28-75 & Canon 24-70 & 70-200 here. I never compared the Tamron to Canon for picture quality but if weight and usability are an issue then the Tamron is a good choice. But those Canons are razor sharp and when I carry one for hours I figure I'm just exercising a bit.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

06/01/2008 12:17:19 AM · #6

I suggest Canon 70-200 f/4L IS + Tamron 28-75mm or 17-50mm.

Patrick_R

Canon EOS-60D

06/01/2008 12:18:25 AM · #7

Originally posted by scalvert:

I suggest Canon 70-200 f/4L IS + Tamron 28-75mm or 17-50mm.

agreed

levyj413

Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

06/01/2008 12:21:19 AM · #8

I love my Tamron 17-50. It's my standard lens.

The question you always have to ask yourself is: what are you using it for? At DPC sizes, I'd be willing to bet no one could tell the difference. At wall size, viewed from fairly close, perhaps.

The other question is: are your shooting preferences going to matter more than the lens differences? The Tamrons are quick to focus, but they're not silent, whereas the L series use USM. So they're faster and silent. But if you're shooting landscapes, who cares?

For your reference, here are the top scorers here at DPC with a few of the lenses:
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon
Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

Prof_Fate

06/01/2008 11:06:25 AM · #9

As was mentioned, the final size of hte print you plan to make may be a consideration, but other things to consider. I've had tamron and sigma glass- cheap, medium (fast) and good glass and now have all canon and am slowly moving up to L.

What L gives you:
consistent look to your images (color, contrast). Mixing brands can cause differences in color (yellows were very different between my tamron 70-210 2.8 and canon 10-200 2.8IS).
Focus speed - there is NO comparison bewteen canon's L and tamron lenses. I was shooting tractor pulls at night and the big nasy tractors are fast. The ONLY lens that could keep up was the 70-200 2.8. The tamron 28-75 was useless - completely. Canon's 17-55 was better - at least it got focus on the sled (when focusing on the front of the tractor). Focus speed matters in many situations.
Sealing - none of the thrid party lenses are sealed as far as I know, and not even all L lenses are. But it can matter - I was shooting the T&I (Team and individual) shots for a baseball team and the wind was blowing - blowing all the infield sand/clay everywhere. My lens is now gritty feeling (17-55) and I may have to send it in for cleaning by canon. I bought a 24-70 before my next shoot and no grit got in that lens.
Resale value - L lenses hold their value better than any other lens out there. I'd not call them an investment as they don't increase in value, but they are rather liquid - you can sell one in 3 days very easily. Try that with most third party glass and you'll sell at a bigger discount (25% vs 10%) and take longer to sell it.
Optically the third party lenses (EX/SP lines) are as good as canon's, sharpness wise. But if you shoot RAW and use canon's DPP software all the canon lenses are programmed in there for correction to distortion, vignetting, CA and more. Sure, you can get that feature with other software you can buy, but why spend the money if you don't have to?

No one that has ever bought L glass has regretted it. No one sells an L to get a Tamron lens (short of needing the cash for rent money).

Look for used lenses. Consider the 10-22 as it's a spectacular lens and 1/2 the price of the 16-35, and 17-55 2.8 IS as it's cheaper than the 24-70, or the F4 version of the 70-200 - you can get more lenses now and still resell them in a year for the 24-70 or 2.8 version and not lose anything.

MikeO

Fujifilm x100

06/01/2008 03:39:11 PM · #10

I was a bit sceptical about L glass but I have just purchased a 70-200 f4 L.
Well I am hooked! Even my daughter noticed the difference. Sharpness, colour reproduction and fast, fast focusing. I took it out this weekend and could not be more pleased with the results. Go L, you will not regret it

rider

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 500mm f/4.0L IS USM

06/01/2008 03:52:54 PM · #11

yep, do you want a bunch of lenses or good glass ---2 kia's or 1 bmw?

levyj413

Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

06/01/2008 04:20:47 PM · #12

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

As was mentioned, the final size of hte print you plan to make may be a consideration, but other things to consider.

Thanks. That's a very good list of considerations beyond image quality, all of which fit right into "what are you using 'em for and what conditions do you shoot under?"

Rider, as for "two kias vs. one BMW," it still depends. Do you just want to get to work in the morning? What if it's more like "one kia for towing a boat and one kia with three times the gas mileage for commuting" vs. one gas-guzzling BMW sedan?

No one's disputing whether L glass is good glass, but when budget comes into play, "best choice" doesn't always mean "buy the most expensive thing available."

Message edited by author 2008-06-01 16:22:19.

Moose408

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

06/01/2008 06:06:00 PM · #13

Originally posted by Patrick_R:

Originally posted by scalvert:
I suggest Canon 70-200 f/4L IS + Tamron 28-75mm or 17-50mm.
agreed

Interesting idea, but the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS is only $50 more than the f/4L IS, so would you still go with the f/4?

As for the Kia vs BMW thing, I'm thinking it's more like this...

Kia => slow lens
Chevy/Ford => Fast 3rd party lens
BMW => Canon L series

So I was proposing going with 2 Chevy/Fords as opposed to a single BMW.

Basically am I going to be happy going with a 3rd party fast lens, meaning does the fast glass give me an advantage or is a slower L more of an advantage?

Canon EF 500mm f/4.0L IS USM

06/01/2008 06:28:54 PM · #14

Originally posted by Moose408:

Originally posted by scalvert:
I suggest Canon 70-200 f/4L IS + Tamron 28-75mm or 17-50mm.

Interesting idea, but the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS is only $50 more than the f/4L IS, so would you still go with the f/4?

Would I? I'm waiting for my f/4 to be delivered this week. The 70-200 F/4 IS may be the #1 sharpest lens Canon makes, and it offers 4 stops of image stabilization (the f/2.8 is only one stop faster). Such a long lens would normally be used outdoors where there's plenty of light anyway, and the f/2.8 is downright HEAVY- not much fun to carry around on a day trip. The f/4 and both Tamrons share the same filter size, too, so you can use one good circular polarizer or other filter on all of them.

The biggest determining factors are intended use and budget. If you're going to be shooting weddings or other commercial work, then the extra speed of Canon's fast USM lenses will make a difference. Otherwise, I believe you'll get FAR more use out of two cheaper (but excellent) lenses that cover a greater zoom range. I can't tell the difference between an image taken with the Canon 24-70 and my Tamron 28-75, and that's what really counts IMO. The Canon 5D we use for studio photography at my office sports a Tamron 28-75 lens, and we've never had any reason to question that purchase.

Message edited by author 2008-06-01 18:31:50.

rider

Canon EOS-7D

06/01/2008 06:47:00 PM · #15

Originally posted by levyj413:

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
As was mentioned, the final size of hte print you plan to make may be a consideration, but other things to consider.

Thanks. That's a very good list of considerations beyond image quality, all of which fit right into "what are you using 'em for and what conditions do you shoot under?"

Rider, as for "two kias vs. one BMW," it still depends. Do you just want to get to work in the morning? What if it's more like "one kia for towing a boat and one kia with three times the gas mileage for commuting" vs. one gas-guzzling BMW sedan?

No one's disputing whether L glass is good glass, but when budget comes into play, "best choice" doesn't always mean "buy the most expensive thing available."

but then i thought pictures were all about how they looked and what they said to the viewer--if this isn't true i guess the 18-55 is all i need?

Anti-Martyr

Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

06/01/2008 07:17:16 PM · #16

Lulz, in keeping with the car analogy:

3rd party fast lenses: New Chevy Corvette - Not the best in the looks field, but DAMN that thing can perform for a cheap price!

Canon L Lens: Lamborghini Reventon - The looks and the quality will blow you away, and they perform like no other, but they're ridiculously expensive.

ben4345

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

06/01/2008 09:14:14 PM · #17

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Well said.

You should also consider the Tokina 16-50mm 2.8 lens, it might not be as sharp as the Tamron wide open (it's still pretty sharp) but the out-of-focus blur sure makes up for it. And it focuses a lot faster, more constant too. Another pluses are better build quality and 16mm.

Simms

06/02/2008 07:54:24 AM · #18

OK, I'll throw my thoughts into the mix here.

The Tamron 28-75 f2.8 is a great lens, it holds it own against the Canon 24-70 f2.8, colour/contrast is not far off the 24-70. Yes the build quality is slightly lower, but the price is a LOT lower. I would of been happy with sticking with my tamron, but when I upgraded to the 1D body it made a lot of sense to make sure all my main lenses were weather-proofed as well (although I still need to upgrade my 85mm from the 1.8 to the 1.2 version). The quality of your images will be indistinguishable when viewing normally, and even when pixel-peeping at 100% you will be hard pressed to find any problems (if you get a good copy). I used the Tamron on my full-frame 5D and even at the edges it remained pretty sharp, on a 1.6x crop camera like a 350d or 40D then you wont need to worry about those problems anyway.

70-200 F4IS - I had one for these for about a week when it first came out, and I was HUGELY disappointed with it. The colour & contrast and just the overall `FEEL` of the images was far lower than I had expected. Beforehand I had borrowed the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and had rented the Canon 70-200 f2.8. The sigma was far better than the 70-200f4IS by miles IMHO and the Canon 70-200 F2.8 still is, as far as I am concerned, THE sharpest telephoto lens I have ever used, even wide open the detail resolved was phenomenally sharp. I sent the F4IS back and paid the extra for the IS version and whilst it is an amazing lens, the non-IS version still has the edge over its stabilized brother.

So, not sure how this works into your budget, but I would recommend

Tamron 28-75 F2.8
Canon 70-200 F2.8L (non-IS)

06/02/2008 08:34:17 AM · #19

Originally posted by Simms:

70-200 F4IS - I had one for these for about a week when it first came out, and I was HUGELY disappointed with it...

That's not a normal experience. The new f/4 IS lens is widely regarded as superior to Canon's f/2.8 models. You can compare the sharpness here.

Simms

06/02/2008 11:41:20 AM · #20

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Simms:
70-200 F4IS - I had one for these for about a week when it first came out, and I was HUGELY disappointed with it...

That's not a normal experience. The new f/4 IS lens is widely regarded as superior to Canon's f/2.8 models. You can compare the sharpness here.

I disagree with that, I would say they have a very poor copy of the 2.8 there.

LOL, I just changed their copy of the 2.8L to f2.8 and its dreadful... I would definitely say a very very poor copy.

EDIT, OK thats a great page, thanks for the heads up, but I just run some other comparisons, compared to the 85mm 1.8, the 85mm 1.2 and the 24-70 f2.8 at the same focal lengths and apetures and the 70-200f4 beats them all hands down.... I think they have an incredibly good copy of the 70-200 in that case..

Message edited by author 2008-06-02 11:47:24.

06/02/2008 11:46:39 AM · #21

Originally posted by Simms:

I disagree with that, I would say they have a very poor copy of the 2.8 there.

It's equally possible that you had a poor copy of the f/4 lens. Canon's own MTF charts rate it sharper than the 2.8.

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

06/02/2008 11:55:29 AM · #22

Originally posted by Simms:

... but when I upgraded to the 1D body it made a lot of sense to make sure all my main lenses were weather-proofed as well (although I still need to upgrade my 85mm from the 1.8 to the 1.2 version).

The f/1.2 version is not weather-sealed, either. Not worth the money.

Simms