Tamron 28-75 vs Canon 24-70

C

Comradeleo

Member
First post here, thought I just dive in with the VDSLR issue Im most pressed with at this moment (these issues change rapidly).

If you're on a tight budget (me) looking to build out an essential kit (me) right away the Tamron screams out as the clear 'bang for buck' winner between the two. I also know that the tamron 28-75 is a highly regarded lens on these forums, which also makes me inclined to forget about the wonderful Canon L glass.

However, I just can't seem to rid myself of the foolish desire to spend ~$700 more on the Canon glass. So, I feel like I need to be convinced to finally dissuade myself from the canon.

Aside from the fact that with any canon glass you're paying a premium for the brand and the superior build quality, are there any qualitative, substantive differences between the tamron and the canon when it comes to image quality in shooting video? I have many other questions, but I'll just start with this one :)

Thanks!
 
I've been told the Canon 24-70 is the lowest performing premium standard zoom. Thats not my opinion, its just what I heard a lot in photography circles.

From all the reviews I've read, the Canon is no better than the Tamron at f/4 and at f/2.8 the difference is negligible.

Check out the full frame and APS-C reviews of both lenses here:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/49/cat/23
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/143/cat/11

I would personally have 2 lenses for the price of a Canon "L" or premium Nikon. Except for the 24-105 which exists no cheaper alternative.
 
The optics from the Tamron are very close in quality to those on the Canon. The difference is certainly not worth $700.

So what does $700 more buy you?
1.) Better build quality
2.) Better manual focusing mechanics
3.) Ultrasonic motor for fast and quiet autofocus (the Tamron's main shortcoming, performance-wise)

I would bet that any difference in image quality would only be noticeable when taking stills. Since the video mode reduces image quality significantly, even a mediocre lens (such as the cheap Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS) can give great results in many circumstances. That's not to say that poor or mediocre lenses are good enough for video; optical issues like chromatic aberration, contrast, and color reproduction could easily be noticeable.

But again, the Tamron is close enough to the Canon optically such that you'll need the other advantages of the Canon to justify the price.
 
Don't forget the sigma 24-70/2.8.

There's quite a difference between 28mm and 24mm and

very little difference between 70mm and 75mm
 
Something to consider about ultrasonic motors is that they don't have a hard stop for rack focusing. Overcrank your focus and you have to redo your focus marks. I haven't used the tamron 28-75 but have used the 17-50 and the 17-50 has hard stops at near and far focus. The downsides of my tamron are short focus throw on the lens and loud slower autofocus.

For what its worth, I would rather get a wider lens on an APS-C sensor. The 17-50 Tamron or canon 16-35 are both solid lenses on an APS-C sensor. The are smaller which helps with not having a super front heavy camera and the 16-35 has the added bonus of not having the lens extend when zooming which helps if you ever want to use a mattebox.
 
J Davis said:
Don't forget the sigma 24-70/2.8.

There's quite a difference between 28mm and 24mm and

very little difference between 70mm and 75mm
Click to expand...

Agreed, the wide end would be my primary concern were I thinking about the purchase. 24mm is a LOT wider than 28mm. The equivalent focal lengths are 38.4 and 44.8. One is considered normal for all intents and purposes, while the other is approaching wide angle territory.

I personally just bought the 16-35 and think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, but that's just me. 25.5-56mm is a remarkably useful range for my kind of shooting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top