Lens upgrade - which one? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/06/2004 10:08:34 AM · #1

Hey ya'll! I currently have this lens but as you can imagine, I'm not terribly happy with it. It seems a little soft.

I am looking at upgrading with one of these...

Tamron 28-75 f2.8

Tokina 28-70 2.8 Pro

I am also curious about this Tamron 28-200 which has gotten good reviews at Fred Miranda's site.

So out of these, which would you choose? Have any sample pics to share? Why would you choose one over another? Yes, I've looked at other review sites but I would like to know your opinions. Thanks for the help!

p.s. I will be selling the Tamron 28-105 for $130 plus shipping. It's only a couple months old and I have the box, etc. If anyone is looking for a knock about lens to take into iffy situations, PM me with your interest.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

09/06/2004 10:15:37 AM · #2

I ordered the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di. I hope to have it by Wed. According to one of the lens rating sites, this lens has glass that is near Canon "L" quality at a much lower price. Well.... we'll see.

Adrian Tung

Canon EOS-10D

09/06/2004 10:29:14 AM · #3

There seems to be a lot of variation between those Tamrons, some have gotten really good and sharp one while a few have gotten coke bottles. I suggest you go to the store and do some testing if you intend to get the 28-75.

The Tokina, on the other hand, I don't have personal experience in but a friend of mine who had it said it's quite good and sharp, but suffers from CA at f/2.8 under certain conditions.

Another worthy lens to check out is the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX. If you don't mind a slower lens, the consumer-grade Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is also a fairly useful standard lens.

I suppose the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L is out of the question? ;-)

:)atwl

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/06/2004 10:31:37 AM · #4

Originally posted by Adrian Tung:

Would love to be able to afford L glass but the money tree in the backyard is on strike :-)

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

09/06/2004 10:32:24 AM · #5

Adrian I was just going to type these suggestions! LOL The Sigma 24-70 and the Canon 28-135 are 2 other alternatives. Of course the Ultimate in that range is the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8...

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

09/06/2004 10:35:23 AM · #6

I have a Sigma 28-70/2.8 EX, which is reasonable quality, if a tad slow focusing. If I was buying a lens in this range again I'd look at the Tamron possibly. The two biggest measures of quality is sharpness and focus speed, so I'd pay a lot of attention to how the lenses compare..

Edit: Fixed grammar.

Message edited by author 2004-09-06 10:36:00.

W.R.Miller

Canon EOS-50D

09/06/2004 10:36:04 AM · #7

I have the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di and "WOW!!!", it's a really great sharp lens. Really nice. I would highly recommend it.

I'm sure you would not be disappointed with the 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di.

Sorry, but I don't know anything about the others you are inquiring about.

09/06/2004 10:52:18 AM · #8

Originally posted by dwterry:

I'm in the market for as wide a range, sharp, small, light, lens for my 300D as well. Unfortunately, some people said that the lens I was considering isn't very good (Sigma 28-200 Hyperzoom), and it only gets a 2.8 at PhotoDo

What other sites have you found that rates lenses? A lot of the lenses I am considering, in the 24-200 range aren't rated there.

Note that the Canon 28-135 gets a respectable 3.5 on PhotoDO (at least respectable compared to the other lenses I've looked at!

09/06/2004 10:54:51 AM · #9

I don't think there are any other sites than PhotoDo that rate lenses purely on glass sharpness. PhotoZone and FredMiranda are good for usability, etc, but I'm cynical about their fairness to say the least..

Edit: Btw, nshapiro, the Tamron 28-300 XR is supposed to be better quality than the Sigma..

Message edited by author 2004-09-06 10:55:44.

09/06/2004 10:57:50 AM · #10

Originally posted by wackybill:

Going to the Tamron site on this, I see there's a new AF28-300MM F/3.5-6.3 XR Di which looks pretty "light" and interesting (and has full "walking around with only one lens" range).

Anyone have thoughts about this?

09/06/2004 10:58:42 AM · #11

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Thanks Paul--I didn't see your note until I posted mine!

Edited for more content:

Does anyone have the Tokina 28-200?

Message edited by author 2004-09-06 10:59:54.

09/06/2004 11:00:45 AM · #12

No prob.. I did have a brief look at a review (can't remember where, sorry).. It faired reasonably as I recall. I don't think a 10x zoom is ever going to be stunning quality, which I guess is something you accept for the convenience.. It was supposed to have fairly bad distrortion at the top and bottom end (reviewer said DON'T use it for horizons, and showed fairly bad examples).

If you do get one please let us know how you get on. It's been on my want list for a while, but I'm not due for a holiday for a while.

Edit: Above is for the Tamron 28-300.

Message edited by author 2004-09-06 11:01:37.

09/06/2004 11:14:34 AM · #13

Some of these lenses as rated on PhotoDo:

Grade: 2.6 35mm/AF Tamron AF 28-300/3,5-6,3 LD Aspherical (IF)
Grade: 2.7 35mm/AF Tamron AF 28-200/3,8-5,6 LD (IF) Aspherical Super
Grade: 3 35mm/AF Tamron AF 28-80/3,5-5,6 Aspherical
Grade: 2.7 35mm/AF Tokina AF 28-105/3,5-4,5
Grade: 2.5 35mm/AF Tokina AF 35-200/4-5,6
Grade: .3 35mm/AF Tokina AF 35-300/4,5-6,7
Grade: 2.1 35mm/AF Sigma AF 28-105/4-5,6 UC
Grade: 2.7 35mm/AF Sigma AF 28-200/3,5-5,6 Asph. Hyperzoom
Grade: 2.7 35mm/AF Sigma AF 28-300/3,5-5,6 DL
Grade: 3.5 35mm/MF Sigma AF 28-70/2,8 EX Asperical

Having stared at this site for quite a while, it seems to me you pay a big price in quality for zoom and compactness. Or you can give up compactness, go with Canon L, and pay a big price in $$$. That doesn't work for me. I still want to find the best lens with the best walking around range.

Can I ask people to post "links" to any reviews of candidate lenses here? Then I think it will be a timesaver for all that come to view.

Message edited by author 2004-09-06 11:16:24.

09/06/2004 11:36:13 AM · #14

Originally posted by Adrian Tung:

... the consumer-grade Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is also a fairly useful standard lens.

Looked at that one too but folks seem to favor the Canon 28-105mm over it. As I will mostly be using the lens indoors in a studio environment (w/ a tripod) the extra $$$ to get the IS isn't really worth it to me.
Anybody have the Canon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM? Like it?

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

09/06/2004 11:48:19 AM · #15

Originally posted by digistoune:

Originally posted by Adrian Tung:
... the consumer-grade Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is also a fairly useful standard lens.

Looked at that one too but folks seem to favor the Canon 28-105mm over it. As I will mostly be using the lens indoors in a studio environment (w/ a tripod) the extra $$$ to get the IS isn't really worth it to me.
Anybody have the Canon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM? Like it?

FWIW PhotoDO rating is less than the 28-135 IS USM:
Grade: 3.3 35mm/AF Canon EF 28-105/3,5-4,5 USM
Grade: 3.5 35mm/AF Canon EF 28-135/3,5-5,6 IS USM

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

09/06/2004 11:52:55 AM · #16

Originally posted by digistoune:

Anybody have the Canon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM? Like it?

I started out with that lens and it's a great lens for the money. I can't give you any comparisions between that and what you have and are looking at though. I actually wish I hadn't sold my 28-105 now though.

09/06/2004 11:58:37 AM · #17

Originally posted by nshapiro:

I still want to find the best lens with the best walking around range.

If that's the case don't go for a f/2.8 through the range lens, because they're quite heavy.. Although I find my Sigma 28-70/2.8 EX a pretty nice range there's no way I'd take it on holiday because it's just too big and heavy.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/06/2004 12:02:09 PM · #18

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by digistoune:

Anybody have the Canon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM? Like it?

I started out with that lens and it's a great lens for the money. I can't give you any comparisions between that and what you have and are looking at though. I actually wish I hadn't sold my 28-105 now though.

Interesting... What made you get rid of it?

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

09/06/2004 12:22:38 PM · #19

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

That's another thing I like about the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di, it weighs in at only 18 ounces.

The Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX weighs in at 24 ounces and has a whopping 82mm filter size. But on the other hand, it has a wider angle which could be really important for a 1.6x crop. (hmmm.. I just noticed you were talking about the 28-70 on the Sigma as well but I didn't see that one for Canon at Adorama)

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

09/06/2004 12:33:40 PM · #20

Originally posted by dwterry:

I just noticed you were talking about the 28-70 on the Sigma as well but I didn't see that one for Canon at Adorama

I've checked B&H too, it doesn't seem to be available. Guess they discontinued it now they've got the 24-70 available. At least the 28-70 only has a 77mm thread though. :-)

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

09/06/2004 12:34:04 PM · #21

Originally posted by digistoune:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by digistoune:

Anybody have the Canon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM? Like it?

I started out with that lens and it's a great lens for the money. I can't give you any comparisions between that and what you have and are looking at though. I actually wish I hadn't sold my 28-105 now though.

Interesting... What made you get rid of it?

I bought a 24-70 f/2.8 and didn't want the extra lens to lug around in my bag.

09/06/2004 03:07:38 PM · #22

Just to simplify things (or maybe complicate them ;-) lets compare the lenses mentioned above to a known [and loved] standard - the 50mm 1.8. I know I'm basically comparing apples to oranges (prime vs. zoom) but I'm talking about quality, response time, sharpness - that sorta thing. Discuss....