Well, like on this guys footage...notice he says something in his description about the "lens twist" method, which sounds like one of these work arounds, but he's using a Zeiss, why would he need to do that?
http://www.vimeo.com/4349073

More than likely to lock in exposure or iso settings.

Ahh, where if you set it on the Manual Lens, its not locked...?

What do you all think of the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 lenses?
I could get those two for the price of the one Canon 24-70 f/2.8...just wondering if the value is there?

I had a 28-75 for my old Pentax and liked it. My copy was not necessarily tack sharp wide open, but was pretty stinking sharp at 3.2. I would give the 28-75 a thumbs up. I have only used the 70-200 briefly when a friend got one. I was not blown away by that one, but I didn't really get a chance to give it a thorough workout. Plus it was on a body that I am not familiar with. So all in all I would say yes to the 28-75 and maybe to the 70-200, spend some time with it and see what you think.

Thanks wfournier, excuse my noob question, but what do people mean by the "copy" hard/soft/good copies...etc? I have excluded the Tamron 70-200, I will shop that lens range later but it will be a Canon or maybe Sigma...I held both of these Tamron's today. I was trying to get a feel for the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 but they were out of it, so the kid showed me the Tamron 28-75 and said, value wise he liked that one better than the Canon, cause he could get more value out of it, like another whole lens or accessories etc, for the price he'd pay for the Canon.

With any lens maker there is a certain amount of variability in the production process and depending on the QC of that particular maker that can be larger or smaller. The general consensus is that the "off brand" lenses tend to have a little more variability meaning that there are some GREAT lenses as well as some dogs that sneak through. Most people seem to have had good luck returning a lens if they felt it wasn't up to snuff to reputable dealer such as B&H (I not personally done this however).

I had the tamron 28-75 for 3years before I got my 24-70L
The tammy was tack sharp wide open and in IQ it is toe to toe with my L...if I showed you 2 shots from each you would NEVER be able to tell...The only difference between the two is build quality and focus speed..But the tammy isnt built like a toy just not a tank like the L and its focus is quick just has a little zip sound to it..for bang for buck for IQ...I would say the tammy pisses all over the L

This makes total sense. So its pretty iffy either way, if I go with one of these?

Well, I'm under the impression that the $2700 I just spent on the 5D Mark II is an investment, and buying the Canon lens to go with it, is part of my investment. In the long run I feel I'd be happier with the Canon L vs. this Tamron lens, but I understand its value and quality for sure. I actually went into a camera shop today to see the Canon L but they were out of stock, so he showed me this Tamron, it was OK to me, build wise and feel wise. I still haven't seen the Canon in person. So for right now I'm going with my gut towards the Canon L, and should be happy with my decision. If my budget was a LOT tighter, I can see the value add and advantage of the Tamron...for sure.

I'm sort of comparing this to buying a Jaguar and putting 4 donuts on it or the stock tires...?

that is a totally bogus comparison because you are suggesting that the donuts are vastly inferior to the stock wheels/tires

Ok Sam's Club Special Sale tires vs. the Stock Tires that come on a Jag?
You get my point, there is a difference in the two lenses, and if I'm going to fork out the money for the nice camera, I don't want to skip out on the lens, which most people would say is the MORE important part of the two, to make good photos/videos?

I would personally go for the Tamron, there is a chance that you will get one that is not up to snuff, but I personally don't think the risk is that high. If you get it and you're not happy with it return it.

hate to break the news to ya Trigger..BUT there is a HIGHER rate of softer versions of the L out there then the Tammy. I have heard sooooo many times people have got soft 24-70L and had to return, or send in for calibration. Thats why i bought my 2nd hand so i know its a good copy. Personally I dont think in your new state of photography that the tammy would fail for you. You dont need weathersealing as your camera isnt weather sealed. Your not going to beat the 28-75 in bang for buck on where it counts..IQ its not an expensive lens and you can always sell it down the road if you want the 24-70L
Jumping in spending a boat load of cash is not going to make you take good pics. There is no need to try and spend all this money when the small advantage that the L has is going to really make a difference for you.
Your NOT skimping with the tammy. So what its not built the same as the L..its still built very well. So what its not USM focus its still fast and zippy and just makes a little noise. Yet its also smaller and half the weight as the L so makes it easier to carry around all day if you dont want something so huge. Just cause something is NOT an L lens dont go thinking you are skimping and not getting something good. That is the one thing that really gets under my skin is when people only look at the Red ring and L o it or they think its junk and half the time they dont know their ass from a hole in the ground.

Check out these images mostly with the 28-75 on a D3

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/690...d=india#6198731

So even if you had the budget, for the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8, you would choose the Tamron over it?

Explain WHY you need the L...What exactly does it do that you NEED you. I mean your not a Pro so what is it that the tammy doesnt have that you NEED

It really depends on how you are going to use it. I am not as familiar with the Canon gear but I can say if I was given the choice between the Nikon 24-70 and the Tamron I would rather have the Nikon. HOWEVER that is because I tend to use my gear somewhat hard and the Nikon is better built. Also as I tend to shoot a lot of sports the faster AF speed would be nice.

Now unless you plan on being somewhat rough with your gear (I wouldn't recommend it with a 5d Mk. II, or any camera if it can be helped) I think the Tamron will serve you just as well. In terms of IQ I belive there will be little to no difference between the two, and as an added bonus the Tamron is HALF the weight. Also you can buy THREEE of the Tamron lenses for the price of one canon 24-70. I say get the Tamron and a nice macro lens with the money you saved.

So I have to be a pro to NEED a Canon L?
Why do I even need the Tamron? I'll just get the nifty fifty and save even more money and learn.
I appreciate you trying to save me money though, its very nice. Your opinion is valued, or I wouldn't post here.
In all seriousness though its not about spending money and thinking I have the best so I'll shoot the best, I've already explained this when I was questioned about why I NEED to buy the 5D Mark II over a 50D etc...I chose to invest in the 5D Mark II, and I want to as well, invest in a nice lens to go along with that camera, and I feel the Canon L gives me that similar quality.

I have nothing against the Tamron, the samples, reviews, and price are all nice, and yes, a lot of bang for the buck. I fully see the advantages of getting this lens. I'm still researching and harboring my thoughts and haven't made a final decision yet. I like the idea of not spending the entire budget on one lens, and getting other accessories with the savings, believe me. I'm weighing the options and will decide soon.

I'm kind of under the impression that none of the third-party lenses are going to be overall as nice as any of the f lenses from Canon. They will all lack in some area - IQ, or focusing speed, or noisy focus, somehting like those areas. But there may even be something about one of the third-party lenses that is better - one might be lighter or smaller, for example, than the comparable Canon lens. What I have to decide is if the price savings justifies the shortcoming(s) of the lens as it compares to Canon.

Everything I have read on that Tamron 28-75 says it is a very good lens. If I buy it, make sure I get a good copy out of the box, because that's where a lot of the complaints seem to be. When I do get a good copy, I think I'll be more than pleased, and I think it could be my everyday go-to lens. But the same could be said about the Canon L?

so why are you even asking the question if you are gonna buy the L anyway no matter what anyone says.

I also see you already have the mindset of thinking that Canons are perfect and any 3rd party cannot live up to them

its your money..buy what you want. Dont ask questions anymore if your not going to even take the advice and already plan on buying the other thing. Just wasting everyones time.

I doubt I'll be rough, I'm pretty anal with my expensive equipment/toys/gadgets, etc...I'll be taking care of it.
The slower AF speed could be a turn off, the weight of the Tamron is 1.1lbs and Canon is 2.1lbs, that is not a big deal to me, and actually at $399 I could get 4 of them for the price of one Canon 24-70 L, that's a lot of savings, which is for sure a good thing. It would allow me to get another lens of some sort as well, and maybe a speedlight...etc..



05XRunner, so just because two people on here say I should get the Tamron, its the right thing for me?
You apparently didn't read this part?



Your opinions are opinions, from your experiences and I appreciate you sharing them. I'm not wasting time, if you don't have time to reply, then don't, but just because I do or do not take your advice, doesn't mean you haven't helped and I'm wasting your time.

There is no right or wrong answer with these lenses, either will serve me well, I think we all agree?

05XRunner, I know you have a good answer for this, but why don't you have any Tamron lenses?
You said you had one in the past, just curious why you don't anymore?

I am giving you FIRST hand experience since I owned BOTH lenses that is why. I ended up selling it and getting the L because I needed the faster AF speed and the build and weather sealing for things I shoot. This is an odd reason but I actually PREFER heavier lenses so it being heavier to me is a plus and another reason I wanted it.

I like all those reasons as well, the faster AF would be good for me being new trying to catch a shot faster and get the focus faster, the heavier build I like as well, I haven't come into a situation where I need to hold or carry it around all day or for many hours where the weight becomes an issue. And I thought you said the 5D Mark II isn't weather resistant, is B&H just misinformed or have a typo? They say it is.

They say weather resistant, not weather sealed. User reports indicate that if it is damp out you should be VERY careful. There have been a number of reports of them stopping working in damp conditions, some are revived by drying out, and some are not. Also Canon does not consider this a warranty repair so if it happens you are on the hook.

Here's a link that talks about it a little: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...kiivid_cs.shtml

Ok, I see, that is not an advantage to me anyway, I won't be doing much shooting in weather conditions, especially in the Antarctica, but that story is a good read. 26 5D Mark II's is a big test.

Everybody always thinks Antarctica means extreme conditions, but we're talking about 20-35 degrees F so not really that out of the ordinary.

the 5D is a little more sealed against dust. It does not have rubber gaskets in it like the 1D to protect it more against water.

True, but there is a lot of snow and ice, which means moisture, which is what he's talking about in his article that killed 25% of the cameras they took up.



Gotcha, those would be nice to have.
Hey, here our Canon Fanboy talks pretty well of the Tamron lens, but I get the impression he's saying its a great option for those with crop camera bodies and budget, weight, size constraints...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews...ens-Review.aspx

no idea why he says crop camera..the lens is designed for full frame.

I might have misunderstood him? This is what made me think he said that...

yep...he is still making it sound like its only for a APS-c sensor size..when thats not true.

I might have just found a deal breaker...



Wouldn't this be bad for me when wanting to shoot the video mode? I want a manual focus option for that, right? Or am I misunderstanding this feature?

there is a focus switch to turn the focus motor on and off like all lenses. the 5D has AF in video doesnt it? Plus if your going to MF anyway then just flip the switch and problem solved

Yes you can use the AF in Video, but I've heard its not a great performer.
See I misunderstood, I took his quote as he was saying it didn't have a true manual focus mode?
If it didn't that might be bad, as I might want/need that depending on how well the AF works in video mode.
But you are saying it does have manual focus and I can turn off AF and use MF? If so thats good then, I don't have to rule out this lens.

What does he mean Full Time Manual focusing is not on the feature list?

Full time MF is something found on Canon USM and Sigma HSM lenses.
it means even in AF mode you can still turn the MF ring to adjust the focus without having to switch to MF. The focus motor is not connected to the focus ring.
But the Tamron like all lenses has a switch for AF/MF

Ok that explains why yesterday when I held this lens, and I was turning that front portion, it was not turning very smooth, kind of a light grind, so I stopped as it didn't feel like I should be turning it, but had I switched the AF to M, I would have been fine?

Decisions Decisions.
I know which one my wife would tell me to get! Ha!

Look what just got dropped off at my doorstep...

your wife is a smart woman

Epic threadjacking.

lets hope camera arrival = more pichers, less boring chatter.

The lens arrives on Friday, just ordered one...not telling you all which one.

Back to the lens comparison we were discussing...

http://imageevent.com/otto/digitalcameras/...s/tamronvscanon

wow that must suck balls having a body and no lens.
Just as bad as when I sold my 1DII for my 1DIII and I had a little bit of a wait time in between...All those lenses and nothing to mount to

i'm sure it will take amazing pictures through these, because, you know, it's an awesome camera.

Its just a two day wait...I'll have one on Friday. But yeah it does suck, I can borrow one if its really bad, but since I'm not struggling yet, I'll be ok.



I don't get it?

*snort, chuckle*

Congrats. Im 100% sure you went with the Canon 24-70L.

Based on what?